Chambana Sun

The city of Urbana Plan Commission met May 19 to debate a proposed public utility district request.

The Urbana Plan Commission has the power to prepare and recommend to Council a comprehensive plan of public improvement for future development of the City, to prepare and recommend plans for specific improvements, and to assist City officials with direction of projects for improvements within the plan. Cases heard by the Plan Commission are then forwarded to the City Council for approval. Members serve a three-year term.

Here are the meeting minutes, as provided by the commission: 

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

URBANA PLAN COMMISSION REVISED DRAFT

DATE: May 19, 2016

TIME: 7:30 P.M.

PLACE: Urbana City Building

Council Chambers

400 South Vine Street

Urbana, IL 61801

MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Ackerson, Andrew Fell, Tyler Fitch, Lew Hopkins, Dannie

Otto, Christopher Stohr, David Trail, Daniel Turner

MEMBERS EXCUSED: Maria Byndom

STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager; Christopher Marx, Planner I;

Vivian Petrotte, Administrative Assistant II

OTHERS PRESENT: Alea Agrawal, Bette Anderson, Thomas Baker, Clare Barkley,

Trevor Birkenholtz, Tad Boehmer, Liz Cardman, Ralph Dady,

Sean Dady, Charles Davies, Paul Debevec, Megan Dietrich,

Russell Dietrich, Beverly Fagan, Karen Fresco, Charlotte Hall,

Colette Hamann, Rhett Hasty, Paul Hixson, Max Kanerum, Jo

Kibbee, Youngjin Kim, Ed Maclin, Mary McGuire, Becky Mead,

Greg Millage, Mrs. Pierre Moulin, Alice Novak, Elizabeth Ohr,

Peggy Patten, Karen Perrine, Elizabeth Plewa, Diane Plewa,

Michael Plewa, Lori Raetzman, Mario Vailati Riboni, Jacqueline

Rickman, Ruth Ross, Steve Ross, Erik Sacks, Steven Scher,

Dorothee Schneider, Leslie Sherman, Stephanie Sofinski, James

Stori, Adrienne Strohm, Jessie Wang, Karl Weingartner, Liesel

Wildhagen, Maryalice Wu

1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM

Chair Fitch called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Roll call was taken and there was a quorum

present.

2. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

There were none.

May 19, 2016

Page 2

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes from the May 5, 2016 Regular Meeting were presented for approval.

Mr. Trail moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Fitch seconded the motion. The

minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.

4. COMMUNICATIONS

Correspondence regarding Plan Case Nos. 2276-PUD-16 and 2277-PUD-16 received from the

following as of 05-19-2016 at 5 p.m.

? Deborah Allen and Howard Schein email

? Maria and Ryan Bailey email

? Trevor Birkenholtz email

? Steve Clough email

? Lynn Coulston email

? Ralph Dady email

? Casey Diana email

? Beverly Fagan email

? Beverly Fagan email

? Beverly Fagan email

? Beverly Fagan image email

? Karen and Alain Fresco email

? Edwin and Elizabeth Goldwasser email

? C. K. Gunsalus and Michael Walker letter

? Katie Hunter email

? Deborah Katz-Downie email

? Robert Krumm and Jennifer Hines email

? Louise and T.J. Kuhny email

? Ed Maclin and Beth Darling email

? Stuart Martin email

? Wendy Mathewson and Casey Smith email

? Mary Pat McGuire email

? Pierre Moulin and Marie-Pierre Lassiva-Moulin email

? George Ordal email

? Esther Patt email

? Peggy Patten and Todd Kinney email

? Michael Plewa, Elizabeth D. Wagner Plewa, Rhett Hasty, Diane Plewa, Pierre Moulin,

Marie-Pierre Lassiva-Moulin email

? Ann Reisner and Richard Brazee email

? Andrew Scheinman email

? Evelyn Shapiro email

? Leslie Sherman email

? Lois Steinberg email

? James Stori email

? Eunice Weech email

? Maryalice Wu email

May 19, 2016

Page 3

? Google Earth photos of the model of the proposed building and elevations illustrations

submitted by the applicant

? “LaSalle Confronts the PUD” and “Threats to a Single-Family Residential

Neighborhood” handouts submitted by Liz Cardman and Paul Debevec

Correspondence regarding Plan Case Nos. 2276-PUD-16 and 2277-PUD-16 received from the

following on 05-19-2016 between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.

? Gwendolyn Derk and Kima Kheirolomoom (email)

? Brian Dill (email)

? Graham Huesmann (email)

? Scott Lux (email)

? Martha Wagner Weinberg (email)

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS

Plan Case Nos. 2276-PUD-16 and 2277-PUD-16 – A request by Andrew Fell on behalf of

Vision Housing, LLC for preliminary and final approval of a Residential Planned Unit

Development at 802, 804 and 806 South Lincoln Avenue AND 809 West Nevada Street in

the R-4, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential, and R-5, Medium High Density

Multiple Family Residential Zoning Districts.

Chair Fitch re-opened the public hearings for these two cases together since they pertain to the

same properties. Mr. Fell recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interest. He is the

architect for the proposed project.

Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager, presented a brief overview and summary of the project. She

began by showing on a map where the four properties were located and mentioned that the

properties fall within the Lincoln-Busey Corridor Design Review Overlay District. The proposed

project would need to seek additional approval for the design of the project from the Design

Review Board, and a meeting is scheduled for June 1, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council

Chambers. She talked about the proposed project noting the size, parking location, materials to be

used and a plaza. The applicant has requested five waivers regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR),

building height, open space ratio, the number of required parking spaces and the front yard

setbacks along both Lincoln Avenue and Nevada Street. She noted that City staff requested

continuing the case to June 9, 2016. The neighborhood responses brought up some issues that

would require more time for City staff and the applicant to address.

Mr. Otto asked if the Plan Commission should consider the criteria for the Lincoln-Busey Design

Review District. Ms. Pearson explained that the specific guidelines for the Lincoln-Busey Design

Review District are in the purview of the Design Review Board. The Plan Commission is

responsible for broadly looking at the plans.

Mr. Otto stated that one of the key terms used in the application and in the written staff memo is

“flexibility”. He asked for a definition and what the limits are. Ms. Pearson replied that the

Zoning Ordinance does not define a minimum or maximum on any of the zoning regulations in

terms of what could be requested for flexibility.

May 19, 2016

Page 4

Mr. Otto wondered if City staff had any analysis or opinion when looking at the minimum

development standards of FAR, building height and open space ratio. Ms. Pearson stated that

City staff did not have any analysis of the waivers being requested other than what was provided

in the written staff memo.

Chair Fitch reviewed the procedure for conducting public hearings. He opened the hearing up for

public input. He invited the applicant to speak about the proposed project.

Adrienne Strohm, representative for the applicant, approached the Plan Commission to speak.

She stated that the applicant agrees with the City staff’s request for a continuance given the

neighborhood’s concerns as well as the City staff’s comments.

Using Google Earth software, she showed a model of how the proposed building would look in

the neighborhood. She pointed out that the new building would be set back farther from Lincoln

Avenue than the existing buildings are. She also showed the elevations of the proposed building

in comparison to the other buildings along Lincoln Avenue. She noted that the other buildings

along Lincoln Avenue are all apartment buildings or fraternities/sororities; none are single-family

homes. She mentioned that they would like more time to conduct a survey of the elevations of

other buildings in the area. She asked if the Plan Commission had any questions.

Mr. Otto asked what things beyond minimum code requirement the applicant was planning to

offer in exchange for the flexibility of the five waivers. Ms. Strohm mentioned the large plaza in

the front of the building. They would also provide more bicycle spaces than required as well as

setting the building back further from Lincoln Avenue than what the existing buildings are.

Mr. Otto asked if they planned to provide an easement to the City for the plaza. Chair Fitch stated

that it is a condition for approval that was recommended by City staff.

Mr. Otto stated that one of the conditions for a Planned Unit Development is to offer a wider

variety of housing than what is already available. He asked what the proposed development

would offer with regards to this. Ms. Strohm said that the majority of the buildings in the area are

group houses. The proposed development would be different in that it would be mostly efficiency

and one-bedroom apartments. They would be more professional than other rental properties that

offer space for students.

Mr. Otto inquired what the applicant plans to do to go beyond the minimal code requirements

with regards to green construction. Ms. Strohm stated that she would need additional time to

accurately answer this question. She mentioned that there was a lot of green space along the

ground level and they plan to keep the big tree that currently exists on one of the properties. Mr.

Otto stated that he would want something more concrete than a plaza in exchange for the five

waivers the applicant had requested.

With no further questions for the applicant, Chair Fitch asked if anyone else would like to give

input.

Bette Anderson approached the Plan Commission to speak to speak in opposition. Using Exhibit

A, she pointed out her home. She had to get permission from her neighbors and the City to put

two additions onto her house, and she had to conform to all of the zoning requirements.

May 19, 2016

Page 5

She mentioned that the City of Urbana is located on swamp land. As University buildings were

constructed along the west side of Lincoln Avenue, flooding began. This year, City staff removed

several trees in the area causing more flooding and rats to come out. She has also had to deal with

City sewage in her home. No one knows where the underground waterways are located. She

expressed concern that the size of the proposed building would create additional issues of

flooding, sewage backing up into her home and more rats.

Liz Cardman and Paul Debevec approached the Plan Commission to speak. They presented a

slide show stating their objections to the proposed PUD requests based on the LaSalle criteria.

Ms. Cardman stated the following:

1) LaSalle #1: The proposed PUD, or any PUD for that matter, is hardly compatible with the

neighboring properties.

2) LaSalle #2: The existing buildings on the proposed parcels comprise two R-2 duplexes, a

4-unit house, and a University Housing. Their property values can actually increase if

rebuilt to the legally permitted zoning of R-4, Medium Density Multiple Family

Residential, and R-5, Medium High Density Multiple Family Residential, for these

parcels.

3) LaSalle #3: With a significantly higher residential density, from the current usage of 8

units and one rooming house to the propose 79 units, there would be approximately a 10-

fold increase in residential density. There would be environmental impacts on both the

safety and general welfare of the public.

4) LaSalle #4: The developer purchased the proposed parcels within the last year, knowing

fully their assessed values; knowing fully their condition; and knowing fully their zoning.

Therefore, he cannot declare that he would suffer a hardship in being denied zoning of a

PUD.

5) LaSalle #5: With the exception of properties directly facing Lincoln Avenue, the

neighborhood to the east is one of predominantly single-family homes and duplexes.

Within the Busey Corridor, those properties facing Lincoln Avenue are University

Residential or “cohesive living units”. The proposed PUD is entirely unsuitable.

6) LaSalle #6: This criterion is irrelevant as none of the proposed parcels are vacant at least

through this past spring semester.

7) LaSalle #7: The community has been extremely involved in planning land use

development for this neighborhood since 1990 with the Downtown to Campus Plan and

more recently with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Debevec stated the following:

8) LaSalle #8: In recent years, there has been an extraordinary boom in high density housing

for the student population in Urbana-Champaign.

In summary of the presentation, he quoted the nomination for the American Planning Association

(APA) Great Neighborhood Award as follows, “Making a great neighborhood isn’t magic but, as

West Urbana shows, it takes a community where residents are involved with their neighborhood

and plan for its future.” He stated that the proposed PUD would be detrimental to this goal and

they asked that the Plan Commission deny the application. They handed out “LaSalle Confronts

May 19, 2016

Page 6

the PUD” and “Threats to a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood” to the Plan Commission

members.

Maryalice Wu approached the Plan Commission to speak. She pointed out that she owns and

resides in the only single-family residence on the block. She expressed her objection to the

proposed PUD development stating that it does not meet any of the conditions for being a public

interest and does not even come close to conforming to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan for the

Lincoln-Busey corridor. It only serves the financial interest of the developer. The proposed

development is a strong threat to the quality and stability of the neighborhood.

Regarding the Lincoln-Busey corridor, City documents state the following: “Preserve the uses as

they now exist while precluding further encroachment of higher density buildings into this unique

residential area.” She mentioned that none of the buildings on the west side of Lincoln Avenue

should be used to compare the proposed development to existing buildings in the neighborhood.

Her specific objections to the proposed development are as follows:

1) The proposed mega development would be completely out of character with the

neighborhood.

2) The five-story mega structure would bring permanent shade on many of the surrounding

houses.

3) There is no precedent for any such mega development in this historic neighborhood.

4) There would be a perverse incentive for owners of rental houses to neglect them in the

hope of having their properties purchased by developers with deep pockets.

5) Density and congestion in the neighborhood would get out of hand.

6) The values of single-family homes would continue to decrease.

She summarized by saying that the residents in the neighborhood strongly believe in a

development that would fit into the neighborhood. The State Street area has been recognized

nationwide as an exemplary neighborhood by the APA, and the University of Illinois is a leader in

the area of sustainable development. It would be a travesty to allow the construction of a fivestory

mega complex.

Charlotte Hall approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. She mentioned that she is

a landlord and receives many calls from perspective tenants who want to live in this area because

of its particular character. It is a calm, quiet area close to the University of Illinois. She believed

that allowing a building of the proposed size would change that character, and she does not want

to see the character of the neighborhood changed.

Steve Scher approached the Plan Commission to express his objections to the proposed PUD

development. He is concerned about the height of the proposed new building, and after hearing

the applicant’s presentation, he is now worried about the mass of the building as well.

When he looks at Exhibit A, he sees many single-family homes, especially on the north side of

Nevada Street. He agreed with Ms. Wu in that the University buildings to the west should not be

allowed in the comparison values. He added that parking is an issue and most grad students own

cars. He ended by saying that it is not the responsibility of the City or the neighborhood to make

May 19, 2016

Page 7

exception to a developer for making bad business decisions. People should know what the zoning

limitations are when they buy properties.

Michael Plewa approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He read three excerpts

from the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. For West Urbana, it says the following:

1) “To preserve the existing zoning protections”

2) “New development to respect traditional physical development patterns”

3) “To preserve these uses as they now exist while precluding further encroachment of

higher density buildings into this unique residential area”

This is a unique residential area that received an APA award in 2007. The proposed PUD

development will change the character of the neighborhood.

He expressed his concern about the use of the proposed plaza. A plaza would not be a gift to the

City. This is the worst insult he had experienced during his entire time of living in the City of

Urbana.

James Stori approached the Plan Commission to speak. He argued against a statement in the

written staff report that states, “The application is generally consistent with the goals, objectives

and future land use in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.” This is blatantly untrue. As Mr. Plewa

cited three excerpts from the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, there is no justification for a PUD that

violates the Comprehensive Plan, City staff should not be supporting the proposed PUD in this

neighborhood and the neighborhood should not have to come to City officials to argue about it

over and over again.

Mary Pat McGuire approached the Plan Commission. She summarized the email that she had

submitted and was made part of the packet of Communications that was handed out prior to the

start of the meeting.

Thomas Baker approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He expressed concern

about the safety of pedestrians crossing at Nevada Street and Lincoln Avenue. If the proposed

application is approved, then there would be many more people crossing at this intersection.

If the proposed application is approved, he asked when the project would commence. He has a

legal lease from September, 2016 to July, 2017 for 809 West Nevada Street.

Steve Ross approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He mentioned that his

family, grandparents and parents, have owned the house at 805 South Busey Avenue for about 75

years. The house directly abuts the property at 806 South Lincoln Avenue.

While they appreciate the fact that the architect reduced the rear-yard setback from the required 7

feet to 24 feet and designed the southeast end of the proposed building to have cut outs that

reduce the mass, they would rather see a by right 35-foot tall building located at a by right 7-foot

distance from the property line.

Just because the developer is planning to spend $12 million dollars on the proposed project, the

Plan Commission is not obligated in any way to approve a project with these specific waivers. He

May 19, 2016

Page 8

read the goals from Section XIII.3.C of the Urbana Zoning Ordinance, which states, “To

coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the development

and the surrounding neighborhood” and “To promote infill development in a manner consistent

with the surrounding area”. In the application, the applicant frequently compares the project to

the buildings to the west across Lincoln Avenue and not to the buildings directly to the east.

Unfortunately for the neighbors the project is not being proposed across Lincoln Avenue. A

smaller building would still add a substantial amount to the property tax income for the City

without robbing adjacent properties of their value.

Paul Hixson approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He stated that it is

important for the City of Urbana to honor its commitment to the West Urbana neighborhood

through the Lincoln-Busey Corridor Design Review District, the Downtown to Campus Plan, and

the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.

He mentioned that he walks every day in the neighborhood. When he heard about the proposed

project he began circling the block to get a feel for the effect the proposed development would

have on the neighborhood. If you start at the block where the Twin City Bible Church is located

and walk north past some sororities, some attractive three story apartment buildings, and then

there would be a very long, very tall, out-of-scale building.

The proposed project is putting the West Urbana neighborhood at a tipping point. The quality of

life will seriously be affected all the way to Race Street if the project is approved as currently

proposed. If the project would be scaled back to meet the requirements of the three documents

mentioned before, then it might be compatible with the neighborhood.

Mario Vailati Riboni approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He resides at 807

West Nevada Street. He expressed concern about the shade that the proposed building would

provide over the Gamma Alpha Society house. He and the other residents in the house have put

in many hours making improvements to the house they reside in and feel it would be negatively

impacted by the size of the proposed development.

Russell Dietrich approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He and his wife chose

to live in Urbana because they do not want to live in the City of Champaign. He recommended

that if the applicant wants to construct a building similar to those in Champaign, then he should

build it in the City of Champaign, not in Urbana. He also recommended restoration over

demolition, because the existing buildings are beautiful.

Diane Plewa approached the Plan Commission to speak. She has lived in Urbana for 30 years

and recently purchased a house with her husband in the West Urbana neighborhood. It is a

diverse neighborhood and can be difficult to accommodate everyone. There are families with

young children, retirees, college students, etc. One reason the City has a Zoning Ordinance is to

serve the best interest of the neighborhoods. She does not see the proposed building serving the

greater neighborhood. Therefore, she is opposed to the PUD application.

She pointed out that on the model the applicant’s representative presented earlier in the meeting

the proposed building is by far the largest building on the model. It is substantially larger, so she

doesn’t understand how the applicant thinks the building would fit right into the neighborhood.

May 19, 2016

Page 9

She mentioned that she lives on a block with three frat houses and sororities and many group

houses. Every year the students switch out…sometimes there are polite, respectful and

considerate groups of students and sometimes there are not. Even when the really good groups

live in the group houses, the noise and parking issues increase. While some surveys may show

that there is a reduction in the number of students asking for parking permits, when students are in

town, there are no parking spaces left on her street.

Colette Hamann approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. She mentioned that she

lives at 804 South Lincoln Avenue. She loves living there with her roommates. They recently

broke into the attic and discovered that there could easily be two or three more bedrooms located

there. There is enough room for three more bedrooms in the basement as well. If the applicant

could just restore the house and make use of the attic and the basement for additional bedrooms,

he could make more money. Please do not demolish her home.

Ralph Dady approached the Plan Commission to speak. He stated that he likes being a resident of

the West Urbana neighborhood. It is a unique community and has been recognized as such due to

its character, the housing and the opportunity that West Urbana offers. He expressed concern that

the proposed PUD would present a significant change and would set a precedent.

Once the City sets a precedent for large scale buildings, he believed that other developers would

attempt to exceed or meet the size of the proposed building. This goes against the Comprehensive

Plan.

He also expressed concerns about safety (particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists), water

drainage, traffic increase, additional parking issues and the impact on surrounding property

values. He believed that most people who live in the West Urbana neighborhood do not want to

see it change.

Trevor Birkenholtz approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He agreed with the

comments that his neighbors and friends had already made. He added that the rules and

regulations have been put into place for particular reasons. He stated he would like to hear from

Mr. Fell directly why as someone who has been charged as a member of the Plan Commission to

uphold the rules and regulations has designed a building that is in complete violation of them. So,

rather than recusing himself from this process, he would like for Mr. Fell to address the neighbors

personally or release all communication that he has had with the other members of the Plan

Commission and with the developer on these properties.

Chair Fitch responded that because Mr. Fell is both the architect for this case and serves on the

Plan Commission, he had to recuse himself for having a conflict of interest. Therefore, he cannot

comment or address the neighbors. As for any communications to the Plan Commission, there

has been none.

Max Kanerum approached the Plan Commission. He mentioned that he lived at 804 South

Lincoln Avenue in 2011. The property is unique in fostering community for students. The

property is like a brotherhood or sisterhood that has murals inside and is passed like a baton

through time. It draws so many unique people and perspectives that would be cutoff or ended if

the building is demolished. It serves as a gateway from campus to West Urbana.

May 19, 2016

Page 10

Rhett Hasty approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition. He talked about his

personal experience with the West Urbana neighborhood. He asked that the Plan Commission not

allow the proposed PUD.

With no further comments in opposition, Chair Fitch asked the petitioner to approach the Plan

Commission.

Chris Saunders, of Green Street Realty, approached the Plan Commission to answer any

additional questions.

Mr. Fitch asked if there was a timeline for the project if it is approved. Mr. Saunders replied that

their leases with current residents end in August, so they would not demolish the buildings until

then. The architect still needs to design the entire building. They have only submitted

schematics, floor plans and renderings at this point. He planned to have the project completed in

the Fall of 2017.

Mr. Otto asked what he planned to offer in exchange for flexibility with granting waivers. Mr.

Saunders replied that there are a lot of energy codes that they will need to follow with new

construction to even meet the standards. Windows and insulation are required to be very efficient.

Also, they plan to enclose all of the parking underground, which is not a requirement. The

requirements for a planned unit development require more than the Zoning Ordinance itself.

They planned to build a community plaza and the project would provide a substantial tax benefit

to the City equivalent to the building of 50 homes worth $200,000. The City offers free tax

money to any developer who builds within the Enterprise Zone. He could get a tax break for up

to five years on four lots, and he is not asking for that. Building a project that would bring about

$160,000 into the community every year is giving something back to the community.

Chair Fitch asked if the Plan Commission had any further questions for the petitioner. There were

none. He, then, closed the public input portion of the hearing. He stated that the case would be

continued to June 9th, and he would reopen the public input portion at that time. He asked if the

Plan Commission members had any additional questions for City staff.

Mr. Otto wondered why the project requires a PUD other than because it meets the minimal

requirement of being on half an acre. It appears that the applicant wants to build a project that he

would be allowed to build by right if the properties were rezoned to B-3, General Business, or B-

4, Central Business, which he did not foresee being approved. Therefore, he did not see anything

with this project other than an attempt to circumvent the zoning. Ms. Pearson replied that this is

the application that City staff received. After reviewing that application, City staff felt that it is

generally consistent with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan in some ways. However, the written staff

memo states that there are some areas where additional information and analysis is needed such as

the FAR, etc.

Mr. Otto questioned if City staff had inquired about plans for energy efficiency and other things

that are required for a PUD. He wanted to know where the plus was that wasn’t required other

than the community plaza. Ms. Pearson stated that she did not have any information with regards

to green building. In terms of the benefits, City staff has not completed their analysis. Perhaps

some of the additional information that they requested will allow staff to do that. Elizabeth Tyler,

May 19, 2016

Page 11

Director of Community Development Services, added that there are many options in doing a

PUD. It is not the City staff’s job to design a project. City staff provided the entire Ordinance,

talked about the PUD and provided the amount of analysis that they could.

She pointed out that with the exception of one of the proposed parcels, the others were shown as

“High Density Residential” in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. For the Plan

Commission’s analysis, it would be appropriate to consider what is “high density residential” in

terms of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.

When the City staff revised the PUD Ordinance years back, they wanted to find a way to promote

innovative solutions to challenging situations. So, they included a lot of goals. She felt that more

work needed to be done to show how the proposed PUD may or may not conform to those goals.

There are two processes that need to happen. The Design Review Board will review the design of

the proposed building and the Plan Commission reviews the bigger picture. City staff felt it

would be better to begin with the Plan Commission’s review before taking it to the Design

Review Board.

Mr. Otto questioned what problems there would be with the proposed properties in upzoning them

all to R-5, Medium High Density Multiple Family Residential. By rezoning and constructing an

R-5 project, many of the neighborhood’s concerns would dissipate. Ms. Tyler reiterated that the

inset on the Future Land Use Map #8 states what the vision is for this particular area, which is

“High Density Residential”. The City of Urbana’s medium-high density zoning districts are very

different from the City of Champaign’s and from what is allowed in the B-3U, General BusinessUniversity,

and the CCD, Campus Commercial District. The R-5 Zoning District is very limited

in height and FAR in particular.

Mr. Otto asked if the density was defined by the R-5 Zoning District. Ms. Tyler replied that the

Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning District designations are not equivalent. The Comprehensive

Plan designations are broader and are for the long term. However, zoning is what the law is.

Planning as in the Comprehensive Plan is what the vision or future is. So, the difficult task for the

Plan Commission is to think through what the vision is in terms of high density residential and

then to study the PUD like they have been doing and ask if the project meets the criteria, if there

are conditions that could be offered, or is there a different approach.

Mr. Stohr inquired if there had been any discussion between City staff and the developer

regarding stormwater detention. Ms. Pearson referred to Page 7 of Exhibit F, which is the

Impervious Area Plan. The City does not require specific plans at this point in the project.

Mr. Hopkins stated that the issue of whether they want to proceed with a PUD should be

separated from what they want to achieve. There are advantages to the City and to the Plan

Commission for having a PUD. A PUD allows them to have a lot of discretion to negotiate with

the developer about how to use a set of four or five lots. If we drive the developer away from a

PUD, then we are left with a development by right, which is not inherently better than what they

can work out over collaboration on a PUD.

He continued by saying that he could not see himself approving a PUD designation for the

proposed project as it currently exists. He used the Windsor Swim Club as an example of how

May 19, 2016

Page 12

collaborating on a project ended with a good proposal. Therefore, he proposed that they keep the

PUD process open and give some strong feedback.

His feedback was that the current height, the current mass and possibly the current density do not

work on the proposed site. He also agreed that plaza as a function doesn’t work for this place.

With regards to parking, R-5 would allow the developer to construct the building on stilts above

the ground level parking. Underground parking is extremely expensive to construct, and it would

not happen in the R-5 Zoning District by right; however if the City wants underground parking,

then we might be able to get it through a PUD negotiation.

He felt that the Plan Commission should continue the cases, but not to simply allow further

analysis by City staff. He believed they needed redesign and feedback. Mr. Fitch agreed. He

could not support the proposed PUD because the building would be too big. A nice building with

reasonable features could be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood.

Mr. Trail stated that there is always an increasing demand for places for students to live close to

universities. He believed that Urbana needed to get denser, but it is the “how’ we get denser that

is the big issue. There are some good aspects to the proposed PUD, and there are some not so

good. This is a prime location to increase the density. If you live next to a university and try to

block new development, it only means that people will start looking further out, which will

increase the number of people driving.

Mr. Otto reminded the Plan Commission that there is another body that would review designs of

the project such as a building on stilts. He reviewed the requirements for a PUD. He stated that

the proposed project appears to be a building that would be allowed in a B-3, General Business

Zoning District.

Mr. Stohr stated that he would like to see more green building information. He is also concerned

about the traffic and pedestrian crossing.

Ms. Pearson stated that if there are specific suggestions or questions, the Plan Commission could

address them to her and she will forward them to the developer. Chair Fitch reminded the

members to email Lorrie directly and not include other members in the email so as not to violate

the Open Meetings Act.

Mr. Otto stated that to get his support the project would need to be consistent with the R-5 Zoning

District and follow the guidelines of the Lincoln-Busey Design Review District.

Mr. Hopkins moved that the Plan Commission continue these cases to the June 9, 2016 regular

meeting with an expectation that the cases may be continued beyond that because the proposal

may be altered. Mr. Otto seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion was as follows:

Mr. Ackerson - Yes Mr. Fitch - Yes

Mr. Hopkins - Yes Mr. Otto - Yes

Mr. Stohr - Yes Mr. Trail - Yes

Mr. Turner - Yes

The motion passed by unanimous vote.

May 19, 2016

Page 13

6. OLD BUSINESS

There was none.

7. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS

There were none.

8. NEW BUSINESS

There was none.

9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There were none.

10. STAFF REPORT

Ms. Pearson reported on the following:

? Rezoning of 805 North Lincoln Avenue was considered and denied by City Council as

recommended by the Plan Commission.

11. STUDY SESSION

There was none.

12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lorrie Pearson, Secretary

Urbana Plan Commission