CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Meeting Agenda CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 MEETING #1199 Location City Hall Council Chambers 109 James Street Geneva, IL Time 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Scott Stocking, Chairman John Mead Fred Case Mike Dziadus Mim Evans Cindy Leidig Ron Stevenson Michael Slifka Bradley Kosirog 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: July 26, Public Hearings: A. Zoning Map Amendment Request to rezone the subject property from the R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District to the R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District. 6. Public Comment 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Location: 304 East Side Drive Applicant: Gary Ciampi Staff Liaison Paul Evans City Planner Phone: (630) This Plan Commission meeting is being audio and video tape recorded, transcribed by a court reporter and/or summary minutes are being taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting who require accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting are requested to contact the Planning Division at at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.

2 Plan Commission Agenda Page 2 of 2 September 27, 2018 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS It is the Plan Commission s job to conduct public hearings in order to receive testimony for and against petitions for general amendments to the zoning ordinance, zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, special use permits and amendments to special use permits. The procedure followed for public hearings is as follows: First, the Plan Commission secretary or the designated representative will read or describe written items, reports, and plans into the record. Second, the petitioner will present testimony in favor of the petition and will present any supporting plans or exhibits. Third, the Commission members will have an opportunity to question the petitioner. Fourth, the Commission will then receive citizen testimony both for and against the petition. Questions about the proposal may be directed to the petitioner or petitioner s witnesses and questions about the Plan Commission process itself may be directed to me. Following such testimony the petitioner and the Plan Commission may ask questions of those who testified. Finally, the petitioner may provide a rebuttal to any testimony in opposition. When all the testimony is brought into the record the hearing will be closed and the Plan Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a motion or motions. In order to give testimony, you must provide your name and address on the registration sheet located at the entrance of the hearing room and sign in the space provided. By signing the registration sheet, you agree and understand that anything you say will be considered sworn testimony and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When giving testimony please approach the lectern, speak directly into the microphone so that you may be heard. Please begin by stating your name and giving your address. If you speak additional times, please state your name each time for the record. Please be concise when presenting your testimony and if your point has already been made, it is not necessary to repeat it. Each of these points is recorded and will be considered as the Plan Commission develops findings of fact and a recommendation or recommendations. You may provide your testimony in written form, but such written testimony must be presented to the Plan Commission secretary or the designated representative prior to the closing of this hearing. After the process is completed and everyone wishing to present testimony has spoken, the Commission will then decide whether it has heard adequate testimony in order to make a decision. If it has, the public hearing will be closed. After a public hearing is closed the Plan Commission will refrain from receiving any additional testimony either for or against the petition. There is one exception to this rule. City staff will submit a report based on the testimony presented at the hearing. This report will consider comments or concerns from all City Departments such as the Fire Department, Public Works Department or the Engineering Department.

3 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES City of Geneva 109 James Street - City Council Chambers July 26, 2018 Meeting #1199 Chairman Stocking called the meeting of the Geneva Plan Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed: Present: Absent: Staff Present: Chairman Stocking; Commissioners Dziadus, Evans, Kosirog, Leidig, Mead, Stevenson Commissioners Case, Slifka Community Development Director David DeGroot Public Present: Residents Ms. Brannen Anderson, 328 N. Second Street; Mr. Rob Byrnes, 2000 S. Batavia Avenue, Planet Depos Court Rptr. Paula Quetsch; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt Approval of the Agenda Commissioner Evans made a motion to approve the agenda. Second by Commissioner Mead. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0. Approval of Minutes of July 12, 2018 Minutes of the July 12, 2018 meeting were approved on motion by Commissioner Kosirog. Second by Commissioner Dziadus. Motion passed by voice vote of 7-0. Public Hearing A. Text Amendments to Title 11 of the Geneva City Code (Continued from July 12, 2018) Request for text amendments to Section (Definitions of Words and Terms) and Section (Wireless Services) of Title 11 of the Geneva City Code (Zoning Ordinance) related to the regulation of wireless communication facilities in the City of Geneva, Illinois. Applicant: City of Geneva. Community Development Director DeGroot read into the record additional articles that were received from the public as well as added items from staff. Chairman Stocking announced that Title 8 was decided by City Council and any issues dealing with the right-of-way and units on the light poles was already dealt with by the Council. Tonight s discussion would focus on the issues associated with citing on private properties. On behalf of the City, Director DeGroot, reviewed some of the issues from the last meeting and explained the differences between the requirements of Title 8 and Title 11. Referencing the PowerPoint from the 7/16/2018 City Council meeting, Director DeGroot asked the commissioners if they had any questions. No questions followed. The Chairman was glad to see that both Title 8 and 11 had some consistencies. Discussion followed on whether a state review of what municipalities were proposing existed, wherein Ms. Elizabeth Herrington Smith, the government relations manager for Cityscape Consultants, explained there was not a state governing office to oversee the ordinances. She summarized that she works with local governments to ensure their communities are compliant with

4 Geneva Plan Commission -2- May 24, 2018 the federal and state laws and that they are protected, but without putting themselves at risk. An explanation of the application process followed. Conversation was raised on whether the commission could adopt regulations after the August 1 st deadline, to which Director DeGroot indicated the commission could but that a small window was left open. Ms. Smith shared that due to the Telecommunications Act, if regulations were not in place and it fell to the state s regulations and one carrier was allowed to come in, she cautioned commissioners that a precedence would be set and every carrier would then have to be allowed in. Commissioner Mead suggested that the City get as restrictive as it could up front, with the idea that it could go back to amend the changes, if necessary. Director DeGroot confirmed amendments could be made afterward. Concern was raised as to what happens should technology change, wherein Director DeGroot explained that should the equipment become obsolete or no longer exist, the equipment had to be removed within 90 days. Adding to the discussion, Ms. Smith explained that technology will also change, but the towers will always be needed, noting some of the tower heights were coming down. Director DeGroot reviewed the main changes to Title 11 on the overhead screen. He further pointed out that in order for a new tower to locate, it would have to demonstrate that it could not locate on the City s existing towers and would have to demonstrate that it could not locate in any of the City s preferred locations. (See Section E2.) Commissioner Mead, in discussing height buffers, recommended staff exploring formal buffers where height could be 100 feet, for example, plus a certain percentage or have language that a setback be not less than 25 feet or 50 feet, etc. believing that if a tower should fall, it should fall within the property that has bargained for its existence. Setbacks and regulations were then discussed with Ms. Smith pointing out that the numbers could not be arbitrary. The language that was in the code already was accepted as the industry standard. Commissioner Evans voiced concern that if a setback requirement was changed and the commission wanted to change the zoning, for example, she asked would the City be better off having something that was not tied to the setback in case there was no setback requirement? Commissioner Mead was comfortable with staff and Ms. Smith to come up with the correct language and a percentage. Mead agreed the concept of having a minimum number was necessary. Commissioners were fine with the proposed language DeGroot was offering. Asked why certain restrictions were placed on the historic district versus those outside the district, Director DeGroot explained the historic district had different light poles than other parts of the City. Commissioner Mead confirmed with staff and Ms. Smith that concealed towers were only allowed on residential zoned properties, and non-concealed were not. Discussing signage on the actual towers, Ms. Smith explained that typically a small sign is located on the gate near the tower which depicts who the owner is, who to call in case of emergency, etc. Light poles can be shared (co-location.) Ms. Smith explained that sound level from the boxes shall not exceed.65 decibels or basically the sound of conversational speaking. Ms. Smith said she had not heard sounds emitted from the towers. Questions and answers followed. Chairman Stocking invited public comment and swore in those individuals that would be speaking. Ms. Brannen Anderson, 328 N. Second Street, had issues with the public perception that the towers were not safe and asked to take into consideration how they would affect property values and land value. She appreciated the positive changes occurring along Stevens Street. She asked to push back the setbacks as much as possible.

5 Geneva Plan Commission -3- May 24, 2018 Resident, Mr. John Braden stated that in June there was a proposal before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a cell tower to be constructed on Stevens Street and the applicant wanted to change the setback from 500 to 128 feet. Mr. Braden said he and his neighbors had obtained 128 signatures against it, and stated the ZBA was also against it. The applicant withdrew his proposal. (Mr. Braden submits the signatures to the chairman.) Mr. Rob Byrnes, 2000 S. Batavia Ave., summarized the discussions that took place at the previous Plan Commission meeting regarding the 5G, the risk of exposure if the regulations were adopted after the August 1 st deadline, and small cells versus large towers. Addressing the large cell towers, he noted there was no deadline and believed the commission should take a more thorough review and not rush into the matter, since he felt it was still confusing. He voiced concern about the location of towers, the City s fear of being sued as the driver behind the proposal, and asked if another number for the buffer could be considered before forwarding this matter to the City Council. He also added that generators can be loud. He urged the commission to slow down the process. Questions and answers followed between Mr. Byrnes and staff. Director DeGroot explained the reasons why both titles were being advanced at the same time. Ms. Smith came forward and discussed, in general, that wireless companies were being aggressive and the way the code was written, it protected the City. However, capacity was the issue and it was a nationwide issue. While the towers were not pleasing, Ms. Smith pointed out they could be disguised which was what the code was designed to do. While she shared that the commission did not have to approve the regulations today, by not doing so, put the City more at risk. Ms. Smith explained that the code was written to be as stringent as it could while still complying with the state and federal law. Ms. Smith could not envision the regulations being passed and seeing a cell tower on every corner, commenting that other conditions had to be met. She could not estimate how many towers the City would see in the future. She further described what assessments steps had to be taken to determine where service gaps existed. Mr. John Hunter, 919 Redwing, distributed to commissioners copies of a report from the International Association of Firefighters, giving their perspective on the wireless issue as it relates to the installation of wireless communication facilities adjacent or near fire stations. Mr. Hunter shared that at the recent City Council meeting, the police and fire chiefs indicated this matter was an issue not only from a residential perspective but also from their perspectives. Mr. Hunter asked for clarification that only Title 8 was affected by state law and it prompted a review of the City s overall ordinance, specifically Title 11, wherein Director DeGroot explained the Small Wireless Deployment Act was the drive behind Titles 8 and 11 and a small portion of Title 11 dealt with small wireless facilities, allowing them on private property, defining what that was, and that applicants had to comply with the review procedures and design standards that were crossreferenced in Title 8. Focusing on the large towers, Mr. Hunter asked if all residential zones were allowed, wherein Director DeGroot acknowledged they were. Per additional questions, Director DeGroot was not aware of any legal challenges to the City regarding exclusionary issues, except for the recent application before the ZBA which he explained the application in more detail. Continuing, Mr. Hunter directed his question to the consultant Ms. Smith, and asked whether there were any references to minimum setbacks in the state law regarding Title 11 wherein Ms. Smith explained the state law was referencing small wireless facilities and there was no state law mandating minimum setbacks. Again, Mr. Hunter asked staff if it was the fear of legal challenge that was the driving force behind the changes, wherein Director DeGroot explained the impetus was the Small Wireless Deployment Act and staff took a comprehensive review of all wireless communication regulations since the ordinance had not been updated since Meeting state and federal law was

6 Geneva Plan Commission -4- May 24, 2018 key and to not leave areas exposed to legal challenges. In addition, Director DeGroot explained it was the City s responsibility to ensure the City was not facing legal challenges on land use. To that point, Ms. Smith added there was other legislation in 2012 that had come up but the items that were in City s code that were in existence since 1997, did not protect the City. And, as a result, more items were added into the code by the consultant to protect the City. Mr. Hunter believed the City was not underserved by towers currently and he wanted to see a report showing where calls were dropped or a 911 call was not getting through. He believed the entire state of Illinois was covered by the carriers. He encouraged commissioners to not rush the matter as there were concerns by the residents. He supported the 500 feet buffer but he personally would add additional feet. Ms. Brannen Anderson, 328 N. Second Street, returned and felt there still was confusion as to which parts of the text amendments to Title 11 were required by state law. Commissioners acknowledged they were not confused. No further public comments we received. Commissioner Mead proceeded to discuss that it was unfortunate the commission could not address safety concerns but believed it was in the best interest of the commissioners to act on the application tonight since it could always be amended afterwards. He felt confident that staff and the consultant could draft an additional not less than language for the buffer. Commissioner Mead believed the driver behind this matter was to have an enforceable ordinance if it was ever challenged. Asked if the items could be broken out to vote on separately on the 5G or did the commission have to move the entire package, Director DeGroot explained his hesitancy to break out items at the last minute but affirmed it could be passed as one package, and then modified as needed. On the other hand, and looking at this case from an engineering perspective, Ms. Smith explained that the coverage was already present, but it was a capacity issue and it was a matter of the carriers having to demonstrate why they needed the service for a new tower. Additionally, the small cell towers (5G) would be used to fill in for the capacity issues. Ms. Smith closed by explaining that while it seemed worrisome decreasing the 500 foot buffer to something less, she reiterated that other steps were in place and protections existed with the proposed new code. Commissioner Kosirog appreciated the public s input, staff s and the consultant s explanation of this matter and was confident in moving forward on this matter. Commissioner Mead also noted he was comfortable having staff add language regarding the built-in buffer plus the height of the tower with a not to be less than concept. He pointed out that if such language did become an issue, staff would know immediately and the matter would have to be revisited. On that point, Director DeGroot offered to go back and review the side and rear yard setbacks across all of the districts and determine an average across residential, commercial and industrial zones. Lastly, the Chairman confirmed with Commissioner Kosirog that any type or size of a cell tower would require a public hearing and that the applicant would have to demonstrate a need in front of Director DeGroot. Motion by Commissioner Stevenson, second by Commissioner Mead to close the public hearing. Roll call:

7 Geneva Plan Commission -5- May 24, 2018 Aye: Dziadus, Evans, Kosirog, Leidig, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 Commissioner Mead made a motion to approve the request for text amendments to Section (Definitions) and Section (Wireless Services) of Title 11 of the Geneva City Code (Zoning Ordinance) as presented herein and in the attached draft documents from the City, subject to the City s findings, and to include the concept of adding to the buffer a not to be less than concept, as determined between City staff and its consultant, Cityscape. Second by Commissioner Leidig. Roll call: Aye: Dziadus, Evans, Kosirog, Leidig, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking Nay: None MOTION PASSED. VOTE: 7-0 Concept Review A. 304 East Side Drive Conceptual review of a proposal to demolish the existing structures and parking areas and construct a new 5-unit townhome building with 4 guest parking spaces. The concept would minimally require a Zoning Map Amendment and Site Plan Review. Location: 304 East Side Drive. Applicant: Gary Ciampi Applicant, Mr. Gary Ciampi, 845 Citizen Drive, Elburn, Illinois, recalled his application was before the commission and after that feedback, he reached out to the aldermen in the subject area to discuss neighbors concerns. Mr. Ciampi welcomed commissioner feedback on his concept plan. Considering the products that were coming on line, Mr. Ciampi summarized he decided to construct a new five-unit townhome building, but there were challenges. A review of the site plan followed with Mr. Ciampi explaining that the garages will be rear-loading and not facing East Side Drive. Some different design work may also occur. The existing sidewalks would remain and mature trees would be maintained as best possible. Per Mr. Ciampi, one curb-cut on East Side Drive would be removed and one curb-cut on Dodson Place would be removed. Discussion of interior space and prices of the townhomes followed. Commissioner Mead surmised the only issues would be building height and the setback. Overall, comments were positive for the project. Asked if the Strategic Plan would have any impact for the property, Director DeGroot explained that the Plan drafts he had seen had no implications for the property. The Strategic Plan was broader with community goals than it was for specific site and land uses. Chairman Stocking invited the public to speak. Mr. Carl Safanda, 1013 Dunstan Road, represented his wife who owns the property at 111 East Side Drive. He confirmed with staff that the City Council turned down the R-7 rezoning; staff concurred. He further confirmed with staff that the site was one zoning lot. Mr. Safanda asked how many units could be constructed on a single zoning lot in R-3 zoning, wherein Director DeGroot explained that on any single zoning lot one principal building was allowed but believed for this application enough area existed where there could be more than one R-3 zoning lot, explaining it could be subdivided into two parcels. However, Mr. Safanda stated it was a built as a single zoning lot and asked for an explanation. Mr. DeGroot proceeded to explain that if the existing structure was demolished and enough area existed, a zoning lot had minimum lot frontage requirements and area requirements.

8 Geneva Plan Commission -6- May 24, 2018 Mr. Safanda disagreed and proceeded to ask staff how many off-street parking spaces per unit were required for a R-3 zoning district, wherein it was relayed that two were needed for each dwelling unit. Mr. Safanda then inquired whether there was a recommendation for a use that was not five units, wherein Dir. DeGroot explained there was no staff recommendation made on the uses, as it was a concept review, and he hoped to address some of those issues with the commissioners, such as variances or less units. Ms. Anina Forni, 323 Park Avenue, did not support the proposal, voiced her concerns about added traffic and safety since a school existed in the area. She voiced concerned about the large size of the complex. She asked that two homes be constructed instead. No further public comment received. Director DeGroot referenced page 5 of staff s report, explaining the only items that did not comply with the R-7 zoning was the north setback which was required to be 25 feet. It was proposed to be 20 feet 9 inches. He posed to the commissioners whether this proposal was an appropriate use of the Planned Unit Development tool to grant the relief? Was there a benefit to the community that warrants offsetting the setback? And could the adjustments be made to the site plan to provide five units, which was allowed, or could adjustments be made to allow less units to comply with the zoning? Discussion followed regarding a couple of different types of PUDs within the ordinance that staff discussed in its report. It was for commissioners to discuss and for staff to get feedback and interpretation on the purpose and intent of applying a PUD to the site or having a code-compliant zoning plan, which would be tied to a site plan approval. Discussion followed with Director DeGroot recalling how the city granted the setback relief for the 1 st Street Rowhomes by pushing the building further south to meet the setback requirement and to match up with the neighboring properties, promoting consistent character within the area. Commissioner Mead pointed out the developer would have to determine whether his proposal would work with variances or not. Mr. Ciampi explained how he determined five units versus four units and the challenges of land costs. Commissioner Mead suggested the applicant provide a plan that had an appropriate sized building and work with staff. Director DeGroot summarized what could be placed on the lot with the current R-3 zoning. Public Comment None. Other Business Director DeGroot noted that the Title 11 issues would be discussed at the August 6 th City Council meeting and he already had a meeting scheduled with AT&T, which was interested in discussing small wireless facilities with staff. No pending items were planned for the first Plan Commission meeting in August. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new library was scheduled for tomorrow, Friday, July 27, 2018 at 3:00 PM. Updates on Fabyan Crossings and the Mill Race Inn followed. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Evans, second by Commissioner Mead. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote of 7-0.

9 Community Development Department Report CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 Applicant Stephen G. Ciampi Location 304 East Side Drive Request A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject property from the R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District to the R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District. AGENDA ITEM 5A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 304 EAST SIDE DRIVE Recommendation Staff will provide a recommendation at the conclusion of the public hearing. Staff Liaison Paul Evans, City Planner Phone: (630) pevans@geneva.il.us Figure 1. Location Map. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, September, BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL As shown in Figure 1, the 0.41-acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of East Side Drive and Dodson Street. The applicant, Stephen G. Ciampi, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject property from the R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District to the R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District. The R3 District does not allow two- and three-family uses. Mr. Ciampi is proposing to demolish the existing structure, create two lots in an east/west configuration and construct a duplex on each lot with shared access from Dodson Street. Please see the attached project narrative and project plans for more information. The applicant has been considering alternatives for this property since In the April of this year, the City Council denied the

10 Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive applicant s request to rezone the property to the R7 Multiple-Family Residential District. The plan at that time was to renovate the existing structure for up to 5 rental units. The Plan Commission voiced concern over the density and suitability of 5 units on the subject property. Mr. Ciampi then in July of this year brought forth a concept to demolish the existing building and construct a new 5-unit townhome building on the subject property. The project would have also required R7 District zoning and would have likely required variations from the R7 District regulations. Mr. Ciampi has since decided he would like to propose code-compliant duplex buildings for the subject property in the R6 District. The subject property has been zoned as a single-family residence since its annexation in the 1940 s. The subject property was constructed as a single-family residence in the A Residential District in The Plan Commission has reviewed and denied rezoning requests on this property twice before this year, once in 1976 and again in 1995, basing its decision on the consistency of the proposed zoning with the existing pattern of development or identifiable trend of development in the area and the consistency and compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding land use and zoning. Since 1995, the Geneva Fire Department Headquarters immediately south of the subject property was built in 2003, while the CVS Pharmacy, also to the south, replaced a liquor store in The Fox Valley Presbyterian Church to the east expanded most recently in 2013, prior to that the church expanded in 1979 and Harrison Street Elementary school, to the west of the property, was remodeled and expanded in After two and half years of review, the City of Geneva approved its first Comprehensive Plan update in 2003 and designated the subject property for Multi-Family Residential use. Please see Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3 for surrounding property information including existing zoning, existing land uses and future land use designations. Table 1. Surrounding Property Information. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, September, LOCATION ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential NORTH R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential SOUTH B4 Business Geneva Fire Department Headquarters EAST WEST R2 Medium Density Single- Family Residential R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential/ Fox Valley Presbyterian Church Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Neighborhood/Corridor Commercial Single-Family Residential/ Public/Institutional Single-Family Residential Page 2 of 7

11 Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive Figure 2. Zoning Map of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, September, Figure East Side Drive Land Use Plan of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, September, Page 3 of 7

12 Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the subject property from the R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District to the R6 Medium Density Two- and Three- Family Residential District. REVIEW COMMENTS/STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning Map Amendment Staff has prepared an analysis of the request in relation to the four (4) map amendment standards the Plan Commission uses in formulating its findings of fact, as set forth in Section of the Geneva Zoning Ordinance. Based on evidence and testimony provided at the public hearing, the Plan Commission may choose to use this analysis as the basis for its findings of fact, or formulate its own findings. 1. Existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question: The existing use of the subject property is a vacant, raised-ranch, single-family home on two singlefamily lots on the corner of East Side Drive and Dodson Street in a mixed-use area. The home has 2,242 square feet on the first floor and a 1,791 square foot finished basement. The home has 17 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 3 full baths, an attached 2-car garage and a detached 2-car garage. The property is surrounded to the north, east and west by medium to high density single-family dwellings. Also to the east of the site is the Fox Valley Presbyterian Church. South of the subject property and directly across the street is the Geneva Fire Department Headquarters. Two-family and three-family dwellings are often used as a transition or buffer use between more intensive non-residential use areas to less intensive single-family neighborhoods. Two- and Threefamily dwellings are often located on busy streets and adjacent to single-family homes in older neighborhoods. The proposed medium density duplex development would be compatible with the existing uses within the general area. 2. The zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question: The subject property is currently zoned R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District. The single-family dwellings to the north and west are also in the R3 District. The dwellings to the east across East Side Drive are zoned R2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential District. The Geneva Fire Department Headquarters to the south is zoned B4 Business. Just west of the subject property on Dodson Street is the Harrison Elementary School which is zoned R-PS Public School District. The requested R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District is a different zoning district than the zoning districts surrounding the subject property. As a transitional zoning district, the requested R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District would act as a buffer between these more intensive non-residential uses to the south and east. Therefore, the proposed Page 4 of 7

13 Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District zoning classification would be compatible with the existing zoning classifications of the property in the general area. 3. The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing zoning classification as well as the proposed zoning classification: The existing zoning of the subject property is R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District. The intent of the R3 District is for medium to high density single-family areas in the older areas of the city and to protect such residential areas from the encroachment of incompatible use. Permitted uses in the R3 District include group homes, parks and recreational uses and single-family detached dwellings. The R3 District allows for a minimum lot area of 8,400 square feet and minimum frontage of 60 feet. The proposed R6 Two- and Three-Family Residential District is intended for low to moderate density housing and to protect them from incompatible uses. The district is specifically intended for older, developed areas of the community. Permitted uses in the R6 District include attached dwellings, group homes, parks and recreational uses, three-family dwellings, two-family dwellings and single-family dwellings. The subject property meets all the R6 Two- and Three-Family Residential District lot size requirements. Table 2 below shows how the subject property complies with the R6 Two- and Three-Family Residential District bulk standards and the existing R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family Residential District. Table 2. Zoning District Comparisons. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, September, Zoning Category Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage R3 Medium to High Density Single-Family 8,400 square feet/dwelling Unit R6 Multiple-Family Two- and Three-Family 3,250 square feet/dwelling Unit 304 East Side Dr Duplex Plan 4 Dwelling Units (proposed) 60 feet 50 feet feet (min.) Street Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20.3 feet (south) 25.0 feet (east) Side Setback 6 feet 6 feet 20.2 feet (north) 6.2 feet (btw bldgs.) Rear Setback 25 feet 25 feet 52 feet (est.) Lot Coverage 40% 60% 38% (est.) Building Height 35 feet 35 feet <35 feet Floor Area Ratio Area (<4,000 sq. ft. est.) Both of the adjacent streets carry more traffic than typical residential streets because of the influence of non-residential uses in the area (school, fire department, church and pharmacy). A larger corner lot is better suited to accommodate a duplex development than a similar sized internal lot because of the building access on two sides. The proposed zoning would also provide a transition from some of the more intensive non-residential uses to the south and east to the single- Page 5 of 7

14 Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive family homes to the north and west. The requested R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District would be more compatible with the non-residential uses in the area such as Harrison Street Elementary School to the west, Fox Valley Presbyterian Church to the east, the Geneva Fire Department Headquarters and CVS Pharmacy to the south of the property than a single-family home because the increased level of noise and traffic which are generally less prevalent in single-family developments and more common with attached homes located on the periphery of single-family neighborhoods. 4. The current comprehensive plan for the City of Geneva. The subject property is designated for Multi-Family Residential use in the City s Comprehensive Land-Use Plan. The Multi-Family Residential District allows for multiple-family dwellings such as apartments, condominiums, townhomes and senior housing. The properties to the north, east and west are designated for Single-Family Residential uses. The properties to the south are under the East State Street Subarea designation, which includes retail, commercial and office uses to strengthen the commercial nature of the corridor. A Comprehensive Plan is a City s policy guide for its physical improvement and development, It considers not only the immediate needs and concerns of the community, but also projects improvements and developments years into the future (2003 Comprehensive Plan). Simply put, the Comprehensive Plan establishes a foundation for future decision making regarding land-use and development (2003 Comprehensive Plan). The 2003 Comprehensive Plan states, if multi-family developments are constructed outside the Downtown, they should be on the edge of single-family or commercial areas. The thoughtful discourse of a Comprehensive Plan is a key consideration when zoning map amendments are proposed. An illegal form of zoning is spot zoning. Spot Zoning is an arbitrary zoning or rezoning of a small tract of land, usually surrounded by other uses or zoning categories that are of a markedly or substantially different intensity. According to Brad Neumann, Senior Extension Coordinator at Michigan State University, to be considered spot zoning, the property must meet the following four criteria: The area is small in comparison to surrounding districts; The new district allows land uses inconsistent with the property s surroundings; The spot zone would confer a special benefit on the individual property not commonly enjoyed by the owners of similar property; The existence of the spot zone conflicts with the policies in the master plan and future land use map. Mr. Neumann goes on to say, In those cases where the master plan supports a relatively small zoning district that is dissimilar to the zoning that surrounds it, this is probably not a spot zone. He states the consistency with the master plan is the most important criteria in determining the validity of the zoning. The supremacy of the Comprehensive Plan in deciding cases where spot zoning is Page 6 of 7

15 Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 7 Zoning Map Amendment 304 East Side Drive alleged, is supported by the Illinois case, Lancaster development Ltd. V Village of River Forest (1967). Per the Residential Areas Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, if multi-family developments are constructed outside of the Downtown, they should be on the edge of single-family or commercial areas. The proposed R6 Medium Density Two- and Three-Family Residential District for the subject property is consistent with the property s Multiple-Family Residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff will provide a recommendation at the conclusion of the public hearing. REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS: NEXT STEPS* 1. October 15, City Council consideration of request *This timeline is provided for informational purposes only, exact dates are subject to change. ATTACHMENTS Project Narrative and Applicant s Response to the Zoning Map Amendment Standards submitted September 4, 2018 Plat of Survey Prepared by Todd Surveying dated November 3, 2017 Lot Plan Prepared by Todd Surveying dated August 31, 2018 Duplex Rendering Concept submitted September 4, 2018 Page 7 of 7

16

17

18

19