Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutG56-08 Ordinance No.G56-08 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT FROM CF COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT TO RC3 RESIDENCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. G66-95 (300—302 Douglas Avenue) WHEREAS, written application has been made requesting a map amendment from CF Community Facility District to RC3 Residence Conservation District, and Repealing Ordinance No. G66-95; WHEREAS, after due notice in the manner provided by law the Planning and Development Commission conducted public hearings concerning said application and has submitted its written findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Elgin, Illinois, has reviewed and concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Planning and Development Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Elgin hereby adopts the Findings of Fact, dated July 7, 2008 made by Planning and Development Commission, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as Exhibit A. Section 2. That Ordinance No. G66-95 entitled "An Ordinance Reclassifying Property at 300-302 Douglas Avenue and Granting a Conditional Use for a Planned Development to Permit Offices" in the RC3 Residence Conservation District", passed September 13, 1995, be and is hereby repealed. Section 3. That Chapter 19.07, Section 19.07.600 entitled "Zoning District Map" of the Elgin Municipal Code, 1976, as amended, be and are hereby altered by including in the RC3 Residence Conservation District, the following described property: "The boundaries herein before laid out in the "Zoning District Map", as amended, be and are hereby altered by including in the RC3 Residence Conservation District, the following described:" Parcel One: The South 4 Rods of the North 16 Rods of the East 8 Rods of Block 7 of P.J. Kimball's Jr. Third Addition to Elgin, in the City of Elgin, Kane County, Illinois. r Parcel Two: That Part of Block 7 of P.J. Kimball's Jr. Third Addition to Elgin, Described as Follows: Commencing at a Point on the East Line of Brook Street which 16 Rods South of the Northwest Corner of Said Block 7; thence East Parallel with the North Line of Said Block 7, 8 Rods, to the Point of Beginning; thence North parallel with Brook Street 4 Rods, thence East parallel with the North Line of Said Block, 4 Rods; thence South parallel with Brook Street 4 Rods; thence West parallel with the North Line of Said Block, 4 Rods to the Place of Beginning, in the City of Elgin, Kane County, Illinois (Property commonly known as 300- 302 Douglas Avenue). Section 3. That this ordinance shall be full force and effect immediately after its passage in the manner provided by law. i Robert Gilliam, Mayor Pro Tern Presented: August 13, 2008 Passed: August 13, 2008 0 OF t. Omnibus Vote: Yeas: 5 Nays: 0 r G Recorded: August 14 2008 ' ya►`y,Published: Attest: ? Diane Robertson, City Jerk • July 7, 2008 FINDINGS OF FACT Planning and Development Commission City of Elgin, Illinois SUBJECT Consideration of Petition 35-08 Requesting a Map Amendment from CF Community Facility District to RC3 Residence Conservation District and Repealing Ordinance No. G66-95,Property Located at 300- 302 Douglas Avenue; by Carol A. Anderson and Paul G. Cayez, as Applicants and Owners. GENERAL INFORMATION Requested Action: Map Amendment to RC3 Residence Conservation District Current Zoning: CF Community Facility District Proposed Zoning: RC3 Residence Conservation District Existing Use: Multiple Family Residence—4 Units r. Proposed Use: Original Residence Use - 2 Units Property Location: 300-302 Douglas Avenue Applicants and Owners: Carol A. Anderson and Paul G. Cayez Staff Coordinator: Denise Momodu, Associate Planner LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Location Map (see attached) B. Zoning Map (see attached) C. Parcel Map (see attached) D. Aerial Map (see attached) E. Environmental Map (see attached) F. Site Photos (see attached) G. Statement of Pu ose and Conformance � (see attached) EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission Petition 35-08 July 7, 2008 H. Ordinance No. G66-95 (see attached) I. Draft Ordinance (see attached) BACKGROUND An application has been filed by Carol A. Anderson and Paul G. Cayez,requesting a map amendment from CF Community Facility District to RC3 Residence Conservation District and Repealing Ordinance No. G66-95. The subject property is located at 300-302 Douglas Avenue(reference Exhibits A,B,C, D, E and F). The subject property is comprised of two rectangular shaped parcels containing a total of 17,424 square feet of land area, and is improved with a two-story frame residence containing 4 dwelling units, a detached garage, a shared driveway, and paved vehicle use area. In 1995, an ordinance was adopted rezoning the subject property from RC3 Residence Conservation District to CF Community Facility District and granting a conditional use for Neighborhood Housing Services of Elgin (NHS) to locate their offices on the site. Ordinance G66-95 required that the subject property be converted to a two family residence upon the discontinuation by NHS of ownership and or occupancy. The applicants propose to continue using the property for residential purposes,and have requested the map amendment and repealing of Ordinance No. G66-95 (reference Exhibits G, H and I). The applicant is requesting a map amendment to RC3 Residence Conservation District to be eligible for the City of Elgin's Residential Conversion Grant Program. In order to participate in this program, a property must be classified as a lawful non-conforming multiple-family residence and located in a residentially zoned district. This use is an original use within the RC3 Residence Conservation District and is therefore a permitted use within this district. GENERAL FINDINGS After due notice,as required by law,the Planning and Development Commission held a public hearing in consideration of Petition 35-08 on July 7, 2008. The applicant testified at the public hearing. No objectors spoke at the public hearing, and no written correspondence was submitted. The Community Development Group submitted a Map Amendment Review, dated July 1, 2008. The Planning and Development Commission has made the following general findings: A. Site Characteristics Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to its size, shape, significant natural features (including topography, watercourse and vegetation), and existing improvements. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the site characteristics standard. The subject property is composed of two rectangular shaped parcels containing a total 17,424 2 Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission Petition 35-08 July 7, 2008 square feet of land area and is improved with a two-story frame residence containing four dwelling units; a detached four car garage, a shared driveway; and paved vehicle use area. There are no significant natural features on the site. B. Sewer and Water Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to the availability of adequate municipal water,wastewater treatment, and storm water control facilities. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the sewer and water standard. The subject property is connected to municipal water and sanitary sewer services. C. Traffic and Parking Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to the provision of safe and efficient on-site and off-site vehicular circulation designed to minimize traffic congestion. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the traffic and parking standard. The subject property is located on the west side of Douglas Avenue, north of Kimball Street. Douglas Avenue is a local street serving the downtown and the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Parking will be provided in conformance with the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. D. Zoning History Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to the length of time the property has remained undeveloped or unused in its current zoning district. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the length of time the property has remained undeveloped or unused in its current zoning district. The subject property was zoned as follows for the years listed: 1927: C Residential District 1950: C Residential District 1960: C Residence District 1962: BI Retail Business District 1992: B1 Retail Business District Present: CF Community Facility District The subject property has been zoned exclusively for single family residence since 1927 until 1960. In 1960, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was granted and the property was rezoned to B1 Retail Business District. In 1993,the City rezoned the property from B-1 Retail Business District to RC3 Residence Conservation District. In 1995, the subject property was 3 Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission Petition 35-08 July 7, 2008 rezoned from RC3 Residence Conservation District to its present CF Community Facility District zoning. E. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to consistency and compatibility with surrounding land use and zoning. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to consistency and compatibility with surrounding land use and zoning. The area surrounding the subject property is zoned RC3 Residence Conservation District except for the area located immediately to the north of the subject property which is zoned CF Community Facility District and contains the Salvation Army facility. The subject property is located in a mature residential neighborhood containing a mix of single family and multiple family residential structures as well as the Salvation Army facility. Additionally, the area is located in the Spring-Douglas Historic District. The proposed rezoning of the subject property is consistent with the surrounding land uses and zoning. The subject property is located, oriented and platted in a manner consistent with the surrounding residential properties. rF. Trend of Development Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to consistency with an existing pattern of development or an identifiable trend of development in the area. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to consistency with an existing pattern of development or an identifiable trend within the area. The subject property is located in a mature single and multiple family residential neighborhood that is also one of the oldest neighborhood in the city. G. Comprehensive Plan Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended zoning district with respect to conformance to the goals, objectives, and policies of the official comprehensive plan. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended zoning district with respect to the Comprehensive Plan Standard. The subject property is located in an area designated"Urban/Traditional"(2.1 to 8.7 dwelling units per net acre)by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines dated 2005. In the urban/traditional residential category, single family homes exist or are desired in addition to higher density multiple family dwellings. The proposed map amendment for the subject property is in keeping with the goals,objectives, and policies of these comprehensive plan designations. 4 Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission Petition 35-08 July 7, 2008 H. Natural Preservation Standard. The suitability of the subject property for the intended planned development with respect to the preservation of all significant natural features including topography,watercourses, wetlands, and vegetation. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended planned development with respect to the Natural Preservation Standard. There are no significant natural features on the subject property worthy of preserving. I. Internal Land Use. The suitability of the subject property for the intended planned development with respect to the land uses permitted within the development being located, designed, and operated so as to exercise no undue detrimental influence on each other or on surrounding property. Findings. The subject property is suitable for the intended planned development with respect to the internal land use standard. No evidence has been submitted or found that the proposed map amendment will be located, designed, or operated in a manner that will exercise undue detrimental influence on itself or surrounding property. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, UNRESOLVED ISSUES, AND ALTERNATIVES The Planning and Development Commission has developed or identified the following findings, unresolved issues, and alternatives: A. Summary of Findings. Positive Attributes: The proposed rezoning of the subject property is consistent with the surrounding land uses and zoning and is in keeping with the goals,objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. B. Summary of Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues. C. Summary of Alternatives. Other than an approval,a denial,or an approval with some combination of conditions,there are no substantive alternatives. 5 Findings of Fact Planning and Development Commission Petition 35-08 July 7, 2008 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Commission recommends the approval of Petition 35-08. On a motion to recommend approval, subject to the following conditions,the vote was six (6)yes, and zero (0)no. 1. Substantial conformance to the Petitioner's Statement of Purpose and Conformance,dated May 14, 2008. 2. Conformance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Therefore, the motion to recommend approval of Petition 35-08 was adopted. Respectfully Submitted, s/ John Hurlbut John Hurlbut, Chairman r. Planning and Development Commission s/ Sarosh Saher Sarosh Saher, Secretary Planning and Development Commission 6