City of Champaign Plan Commission met March 4
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Members Present: Kroencke, Elmore, Reynolds, Cole, Kemna, Sanchez, Barkstall, Trautman, Wakefield
Staff Present: Knight, Horwick, Trotter, VanBuskirk, Marino, Vandeventer,
Motion to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2026 meeting. Barkstall: So Moved. Cole: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Script is read.
PL-25-51 Proposed Special Use Permit at 410 W. Healey Street
Van Buskirk: Hi everyone. My name is Eric Van Buskirk. I’m a senior planner here at the City of Champaign. This is an application for a Special Use Permit from Todd Satterthwaite, who is the owner and applicant at 410 West Healey Street. The Special Use Permit would allow a duplex in the IT-SF1, In-Town Single Family Zoning District. A Special Use Permit is a type of development application within the Zoning Ordinance that generally allows a use that is not generally permitted in that particular zoning district, but may be appropriate in its particular location based on the design and the context that it’s located in. The IT-SF1 district allows for a residential conversion. However, it requires that the existing residence on the property remains and that you utilize the existing building. Because this project is a teardown and rebuild rather than reusing the existing structure. It requires a Special Use Permit to move forward. The applicant argues that the existing residence at 410 West Healy has deteriorated beyond the possibility of repairing it or expanding it as a duplex in its current form, and so they’ve applied for the Special Use Permit.
The property at 410 is located on the West Healy Block, between South Prairie Street and South Elm Street. It is located roughly a half on the south side of the alley that runs parallel with West Springfield Avenue.
We are in the middle of what the city calls the In-Town Zoning Districts. This is a collection of residential areas. It loops around the periphery of downtown on the west side of downtown. There are five zoning districts within this area. The adjacent zoning districts are explained.
The Comprehensive Plan also identifies this as an “Established Neighborhood”. It is relatively close to what we call a “City Center Neighborhood”. This is a higher density multifamily residential neighborhood that is adjacent to downtown. Established neighborhood is a pretty broad category and allows for a wide range of residential land uses and zoning districts. So that includes single family, two family, and multifamily zoning.
The proposed redevelopment of the property includes demolishing the existing residence on the property and replacing it with a two story duplex. These two units will include four parking spaces located off the public alley behind the property and will utilize the existing design standards for the In-Town Districts for multifamily development, and this is included in the site plan. The proposed development will meet all the applicable IT-SF1 Zoning District standards. This includes a 25-foot front yard setback, six foot side yard setback and a ten foot rear setback. It is two stories, under 35 feet and meets the building footprint and lot coverage requirements of the district as well.
Both units will be two bedrooms with one and a half baths. The mechanicals will be screened off the back of the building, and it will include a full width front porch as well.
A Special Use Permit requires that the Planning Commission consider and approve all five Findings of Fact. So, unlike the LaSalle criteria, where it’s a balancing test, the Commission needs to determine that all of the Findings of Fact have been met. This includes that the proposed use is designed and located so that it is not unreasonably injurious to the district or public welfare. The proposed use conforms to all applicable standards of the district in which it is located. The Findings are reviewed
There are several proposed Conditions of Approval that have been preliminarily negotiated. The first is that the proposed redevelopment will conform to the attached site plan and elevations. This is something that we include with all Special Use Permits or special approvals from Planning Commission and City Council. We’ve also requested that the In-Town Multifamily Design Standards also be applied, with some limited exceptions. But the core of these standards, such as the primary entrance facing the street, including that pedestrian pathway connection to the sidewalk. They’ll need to follow the exterior building materials requirements that require brick, stone, wood or natural materials. Also, things such as roof pitch glazing, which is the proportion of the windows on the front facade, as well as some window and exterior design treatments, and that vehicular access will only be taken from the alley. In keeping with that last provision there. The removal of the curb cut on Healy Street and the drive the existing gravel driveway will also be a Condition of Approval, and that compliance with the In-Town Landscaping Standards is also required. With the exception of a fence between this property and its neighboring properties. Both on site and public tree planting, minimum landscaping areas and things like that will continue to apply.
Two letters of support have been received from neighboring property owners. And Mia, the case manager, has received a couple of phone conversation with people asking questions about the proposed redevelopment.
Van Buskirk: Explains the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing process.
Staff is recommending approval and that Plan Commission forward the case to City Council with a recommendation of approval, after finding that the Findings of Fact have been satisfied and incorporating the proposed Conditions as we presented today, and I can answer any questions.
Kroencke: Any there any technical questions from the Commission?
Elmore: Other than the request to build a duplex there is nothing else being requested? No other waivers in terms of setbacks or building materials or anything that wouldn’t exist for a single family home as well? Van Buskirk: No.
Wakefield: What is unique about this particular property that we allow the duplex here versus anywhere else in the IT District? Van Buskirk: That is a great question. And there’s some history behind this. So, staff at the direction of City Council in 2017 and 2018 worked with a neighborhood steering committee on amendments to the In-Town standards. Those amendments focused on a couple of things. They focused on the actual development standards in all five of the districts. They developed the Multifamily Design Standards that I talked a little bit about in this presentation, and they amended some of the development rules regarding parking and height and setbacks and things like that. At the time staff had proposed allowing duplexes by right in IT-SF1 however, the neighborhood group at the time opposed that and we factored that in and considered that and didn’t make that change. That’s the reason why we don’t allow it. However, it is an appropriate use at this location and in the IT-SF1 District, and we think that this is the appropriate method for this case. If suddenly, we get ten different applications for duplexes in IT-SF1, we can certainly evaluate that as a bigger change. But right now, this is the appropriate way to handle this individual request. Wakefield: It’s not this case, but just in general of the design criteria. You have specific things about what the building looks like and why those limitations. For instance, you have a pitched roof that I understand for residential but then having minimum eaves on each of them. You know, my house has no eaves. I like my house. If I was coming to a certain area, I wouldn’t want that kind of restriction. The window sizes. You know, you have a two to one ratio. Why are other ratios not fine? My house has tall, narrow windows that are a one to four, and I think it’s quite appropriate for a house. You are eliminating a lot of designs related to modern. So are you saying that in these areas we don’t want any modern buildings, and if that’s not the intent, then these guidelines really aren’t appropriate. My other concern has to do with the 30% transparent glass. I know I mentioned this when you were changing standards. I think it was in the campus area or something like that to be a 30%. And at that time, I brought up the energy code and its relationship? Because here you, say, a minimum of 30%. And as a standard for the energy code, it’s a maximum of 30%. If you go beyond 30%, then you have all these other things you have to look at. You have to increase insulation for your walls, or you have to look at an overall model of the building to play off that 30% or do energy modeling to go above that 30%. So, I think this needs to be looked at, especially in residential, because people aren’t really thinking about those things. With commercial you typically have an architect who understands those things. I think that’s kind of a limiting thing. So, give me your opinion of why. You know why you have these types of standards. Van Buskirk: All good questions. And again, going back to how these standards were developed and the Council direction on which they were developed. At the time our direction from Council was to go revise these rules. They were very explicit that any standards that we did develop with the neighborhood, and there was a design professional group as well, that they needed to be objective and codified and not administered through a subjective review. Like a design review board. The other piece was we did neighborhood workshops where we photographed dozens of buildings in In-Town, both new construction and old construction. Kind of that mid-century era and historic, and asked people to identify the things that they liked, that they didn’t like, to prioritize those building design elements that were most appropriate to regulate and things that they didn’t want to. Windows were one of the most important components of that public engagement. In particular the look and feel of a more historic window versus a modern window, which tends to be more square. I fully acknowledge the conflicts that arise between Illinois Energy Code and particularly for the glazing percentage and the existing requirements. We would need to revised down in other locations to account for some of that. But that is not the case here. You would be empowered as a Planning Commission to not require a minimum percentage if you choose to move that forward as part of a recommendation. That would be okay. That would be up to the Planning Commission to decide. So, you could eliminate the glazing percentage as a consideration should you choose to do that.
Barkstall: Asks about why the parking of the vehicles will be entering from off of the alley. VanBuskirk: Explains that this would be required for any new multifamily project and is part of the Code.
It is discussed that this is a highly walkable, pedestrian oriented neighborhood and requiring this property to have vehicles that access from the alley means less vehicles crossing the sidewalk to access their property.
Reynolds: Was this area ever considered as a Conservation District? Van Buskirk: No, it was never considered and he explains the purpose of a Conservation District.
Kemna: How far do these restrictions expand? VanBuskirk: The boundaries of the In-Town Zoning District are explained. Kemna: I found the window regulations very interesting. Are there other areas that have these? Van Buskirk: Eric explains zoning districts that have this regulation and other specific regulations.
Knight: I should note that historically, this entire area back in the 50s was zoned multifamily. That’s why there’s a diversity of housing types. In the late 80s and early 90s, there was a lot of pressure from the neighborhood to down zone the multifamily areas. And so, there’s a layering of different districts that reflect how much density has been built in a given block face. The standards were all crafted around a lot of public input. The original set of regulations were very difficult to use. The city had hired an attorney out of Kansas City to help them craft the ordinance. And it was very challenging. So, the goal when, staff worked with the neighborhood on revising those was to make them easier to use, but also, to protect the integrity of the neighborhood at the same time.
Kemna: Does the University District have a similar façade restriction or is that unique to this area? VanBuskirk: There is not a materiality requirement. For In-Town, that was a really important component that certain materials be used that don’t exist in other zoning districts. Other than a glazing percentage per floor requirement in the other districts that’s more restrictive than In-Town there are mostly things like the trash enclosure and things like that.
Kroencke: Any other technical questions of staff?
Sanchez: What are the parking requirements in this area? VanBuskirk: Single family homes and duplexes are required to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit. That’s the same throughout the entire city no matter what. There is a different standard for multifamily in InTown than in the rest of the city. That requirement is a quarter space per bedroom. So, in this case, they’re providing more parking than if this was being built as a multifamily project. But they are meeting the minimum two spaces per unit.
Kroencke: Any other technical questions for staff?
Commission discusses design standards.
Kroencke: Any other technical questions for staff? Seeing none at this time, I’d welcome the applicant to come forward if they’d like and present towards their application. Please come to the microphone and state your name.
Tod Satterthwaite, 502 S. Elm. My wife and I are both here, and we live right across the street from the subject property at the corner of Elm and Healy. The fellow that owned this property passed away last year, and we had noticed that the property was getting very rundown. And one thing led to another, and we talked with the son who was the executor of the estate, and we ended up buying the property. It was very rundown. We didn’t want it to go into somebody else’s hands and then just leave it, run down and try to rent it out as it was. Which we thought would be a detriment to the neighborhood. So, we thought we would rehab it. We spent a lot of time digging into it, taking off paneling and so forth, and trying to see if we could rehab it. And we thought for months that we could do that. And then when we got the reports back from the Masons that the foundation was crumbling and half of it would need to be replaced. And then getting the cost of that along with termite damage and some other issues it really made it a candidate for the wrecking ball rather than then a rehab. That’s when I had originally thought that a duplex was allowed by right because there are a lot of duplexes in the neighborhood and I was mistaken that a duplex is allowed if you do a conversion, but it’s not allowed by right. For, you know, building from scratch on a vacant lot. And so that that’s what brings us here is that we wanted to have a duplex. And so, we started the process with the city.
I was part of the group that worked on the design standards. Basically, that in my mind was a tradeoff to some of the developers in including the design standards and having a reduction in the parking spaces. And so that was a big deal for the developers. The design standards weresomething that would hopefully keep the character of the neighborhood. I mean, that’s what the district is all about trying to maintain the character of the buildings in the neighborhood. A lot of the homes are over 100 years old, and they don’t build them like that anymore. And so, we want to try to do everything to keep the existing homes. And then when multifamily is built in the district, to have it be compatible with the existing neighborhood. I mean, that’s what it’s all about. What does it look like to the public walking up and down the street? You don’t want to have a vanilla box next to a 100 year old home. You know that’s out of place. And it starts fraying the fabric of our neighborhood. If we get a chance to build the duplex. Just use the design standards that the City already has for multifamily. Mostly they make sense, you have the front door facing the street. What a revolutionary idea. And so doing that, having some windows that make it look nice, the eaves, I’m an eaves guy, the eaves make it look nice, pitched roof for a single family or a duplex makes it look nice. In our neighborhood, every house has a generous porch That’s not in the design standards, but that’s something that we wanted so that it fits in with a neighborhood, so that it contributes to the fabric of the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. Eric went over all of the LaSalle Criteria, and I think this meets all of them as he said. I don’t really have anything more to add about that. But at this point, I guess I will take your questions.
Kroencke: Thank you. Mr. Satterthwaite. Does anyone on the commission have any questions for the applicant?
Commission discusses how the applicant feels about the window requirement and Mr. Satterthwaite indicates he has no issues with it.
Kroencke: Does anyone want to cross examine. Staff or the applicant. Seeing none Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to give general comments or speak in favor of or against this proposed case? Please come forward.
Bruce Pea, 506 E. Elm. Spoke in favor of the approving the Special Use Permit.
Nancy Yeagle, 404 West Healey. Spoke in favor of the approving the Special Use Permit.
Beatrice Pavia 509 South Prairie. Spoke in favor of the approving the Special Use Permit.
Patrick Tanner 512 W. Healey Street. S poke in favor of the approving the Special Use Permit.
Kroencke: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward that would speak for or in opposition to this case? Seeing none. Is there any other discussion amongst the commission, or do I have a motion?
Barkstall: I have a comment. I didn’t get that anybody did not understand the character of the neighborhood or did not appreciate the character of the neighborhood myself. After Commissioner Wakefield’s comments, I would have said I would have agreed to make some kind of concession for this demand on the windows had the owner wanted to do so, but since he doesn’t want to do so, then I mean, that’s fine. I myself grew up two up blocks from this house on Arlington Court. I walked to school past this house every day. But I know the neighborhood very well and I appreciate the neighborhood very much.
Wakefield: Just to follow up on what I said, you know, in general, I just don’t like putting design restrictions on someone. But, in making my comments, I was not aware that there was a steering committee from that area. And obviously, if the residents directed this as opposed to just the planning office. I’m not against that at all. It makes perfect sense of why the standards are the way they are because the community directed those. So, I have no issue with those.
Kemna: Yeah, I’d just like to say I echo what both of other commissioners said. I am intimately familiar with this neighborhood. I have a good friend who grew up in a duplex just a few roads south of where this property is. And of course, I also attended Edison Middle School, walked, biked, and drove there. Well, I didn’t drive there. I will be voting yes on this. Because any opportunity to increase the housing stock in this area is something I support. The City recently did a housing survey that said that it needs to build thousands upon thousands of new housing units. And if we can do that in the city while getting infill so we’re not spreading outwards and doing it to the satisfaction of the neighbors in the area, I think that is a win on many fronts.
Kroencke: Any other comments from the Commission? Seeing none I will accept a motion.
Cole: I move to close the public hearing. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Cole: I move that we forward Case number PL25-51 to the City Council with our recommendation of approval, including that the Findings of Fact for the Special Use criteria are satisfied and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.
Van Buskirk: This will go to City Council on March 24, 2026.
Marino: Explains the Manual of Practice information only memo notification and that the Plan Commission can discuss and if they have any issues they can request a Study Session.
Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
https://cityofchampaign.sharepoint.com/sites/CityofChampaignMeetingDocuments/Board%20and%20Commission%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?viewid=6de49957%2D3a32%2D460a%2Da77f%2D72158fa557f6&id=%2Fsites%2FCityofChampaignMeetingDocuments%2FBoard%20and%20Commission%20Documents%2FBoard%20and%20Commission%20Documents%2FPlan%20Commission%2FPlan%20Commission%20Minutes%2F2026%20Plan%20Commission%20Minutes%2F2026%2D03%2D04%20Plan%20Commission%20Minutes%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FCityofChampaignMeetingDocuments%2FBoard%20and%20Commission%20Documents%2FBoard%20and%20Commission%20Documents%2FPlan%20Commission%2FPlan%20Commission%20Minutes%2F2026%20Plan%20Commission%20Minutes
