Chambana Sun

Champaign Plan Commission met Wednesday, Jan. 4.

The Plan Commission acts in an advisory capacity for the City Council. It discusses and reviews various land-use and related issues. It also considers preliminary and final subdivision plans, zoning changes, and annexation agreements. The Commission consists of seven members and two alternates that are appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council. Members serve three-year terms.

Here are the minutes as provided by Champaign:

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES

January 4, 2017

Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.

Roll Call:

Members Present: Wakefield, Bryan, Dudley, Kroencke, Carlson

Staff Present:Knight, Kowalski, Vandeventer, Marino, Rains Lowe, Van Buskirk, Cataldo, Phillips, Ansong

Minutes:

The minutes of the December 7, 2016 meeting were unanimously approved and accepted as submitted.

Staff is sworn in.

PL 16-0049 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Establishing the Curtis Road Interchange Area Overlay District

PL16-0048 Zoning Map Amendment for 3802 W. Curtis Road 3401 and 3102 S. Staley Road to be included in the Curtis Road Interchange Area Overlay District

Rains Lowe: This is the public hearings for the Curtis Road Interchange Overlay District and the Zoning Map Amendment for 3802 W. Curtis Road and 3401 and 3201 S. Staley Road. The Curtis Road Interchange Overlay District is what we are proposing to use as a tool to codify the updated Curtis Road Area Master Plan. A map of the area is shown. She explains what an overlay district is how it works. She explains that an overlay district will be established and that there are zoning districts that can be within the overlay district. The parcels that have not been annexed yet that are included in this area will have zoning assigned at annexation.

Staff has determined by looking at the master plan that the zoning areas shown on the map would be appropriate in the overlay district. A map is shown and explained. She also explains that the overlay district will limit some uses that might be otherwise acceptable in the zoning districts at other locations.

The overlay district sets up a two-part development approval process that will include an Overall Development Plan review and a Site Plan review. She explains what will be included in each of these reviews.

The materials requirement is discussed and Lacey shows examples of materials that are acceptable, she explains the height restriction and indicates that as an outcome of the Plan Commission Study Session buildings that are adjacent to residentially zoned parcels, if it is over three stories, must have an additional setback of 200 feet from the property line so that it doesn’t tower over the residential property. Another concern that the residents of the area had was refuge and litter. The requirements for this area is explained. A key concern was heard about the amount of impervious surfaces and how these can be unattractive. Parking in this area will not be allowed to exceed the required minimum by more 25 percent but it can be reduced by 25 percent. Lighting must be dark sky complaint. She explains that signs must be monument signs and highway signs will not be allowed. Rob clarifies what is considered a highway sign and what is an Illinois Department of Transportation sign.

The Zoning Map is shown and Lacey explains that the Carle at the Fields property was annexed prior to the overlay district adoption. The annexation agreement stated that when the overlay district was adopted the property will added to the overlay district.

Kowalski: This is the end of the road of 18 months of re-visioning the Curtis Road Master Plan which was adopted in 2007, revisiting the Code requirements that have been in place. After many meetings and discussions with hundreds of residents of the area, property owners within the overlay district, potential developers, and Carle. We think we have crafted regulations that will facilitate development here. But, appropriately and in a way that recognizes it’s a unique area and is sensitive of the surrounding neighborhoods and the location. We have tested all of these ideas and we think they are ready to go. We think this is a great revision that allows for development to happen that respects the character of the area.

Dudley: Any questions?

Elmore: If we are going for the text amendment case; the actual amendment is to create the overlay district within the Zoning Ordinance? Rains Lowe: Yes, there are essentially two public hearings. Dudley: Any questions from the Commission? Anyone in the audience who would like to speak to either of these issues?

Dudley: Can I have a motion to close the public hearings? Bryan: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Dudley: PL16-0049 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Establishing the Curtis Road Interchange Area Overlay District may I have a motion. Bryan: I move that we forward this case to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Carlson: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Dudley: PL 16-0048 Zoning Map Amendment for 3802 W. Curtis Road, 3401 and 3102 S. Staley Road to be included in the Curtis Road Interchange Area Overlay District may I have a motion. Bryan: I move that this be forwarded to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Kowalski: These will go to City Council on January 17, 2017.

Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing script is read for PL 16-0047 A Special Use Permit to Allow a Liquor Establishment in the MF-UNIV, Multi-Family University Zoning District at 901 South Fourth Street.

Marino: This is a Special Use Permit for 901 S. Fourth Street. It is the current location of the Illini Inn. Jeff gives background on the history of the building and its occupants. This site has always been zoned residential even though it has always been operated as a commercial use. The Mitigation Plan that was approved in the 1999’s is explained. He explains that this plan only allowed for the property to be used as it is and not expanded. The property was recently sold and the new buyers wants to redevelop the site. A residential development can be done by right. They are proposing to do a residential development and keep the Illini Inn as a historic land use within the building. He explains how the Mitigation Plan will be replaced with a Special Use Permit. Photos of the site are shown as well as renderings of the proposed buildings. The footprint of the building is shown and Jeff explains that this case has already gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals and received variations on the setbacks due to the unique circumstance of the size of the lot. He explains that the developer could do a residential development by right but would like leave the historic Illini Inn within the building.

The square footage of the site is explained and how the Illini Inn will be reduced in size a little bit and the kitchen will move to the lower level. The mezzanine area will be seating. He explains that the current liquor license has a limit of 79 people and this will continue as a condition of the Special Use Permit. A seating plan will be required.

The building meets the requirements for the new regulations in this area. The Conditions of Approval are explained. The Findings of Fact are reviewed and explained.

Staff is recommending that this case be forwarded to City Council with your recommendation for approval and stating that the Findings of Fact are met.

Kowalski: Explains what the Plan Commission is considering. This is a very unique situation and the Illini Inn has been here for years and not caused any issues. The regulations are such that they cannot just tear down the building and build a new one.

Dudley: Any questions?

Commission discusses that the Illini Inn doesn’t qualify as an historic building but is an historic land use only. Jeff explains that the building has deteriorated to the point that it can’t be saved.

Phillips: Explains that the Zoning Board of Appeals is not allowed to grant “use” variations.

Dudley: Would the applicant like to speak?

Andrew Fell is 515 N. Hickory is sworn in. We don’t have anything to add to the staff report but I am here to answer any questions. Dudley: Any questions?

Dudley: Would anyone from the audience wish to speak? Would anyone like to cross examine.

Dudley: Can I have a motion to close the Public Hearing? Bryan: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Dudley: May I have a motion to forward case PL16-0047 A Special Use Permit to Allow a Liquor Establishment in the MF-UNIV, Multi-Family University Zoning District at 901 South Fourth Street including the Findings of Fact as presented. Bryan: I move that it be forwarded to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Kowalski: This will go to City Council on January 17, 2017.

PL16-0051 Special Use Permit to Allow a Mixed Use Building with a Bakery & Café and a Duplex in the IT-SF1 In Town Single Family Zoning District at 802 W. John

Quasi-judicial public hearing script is read.

Ansong: We are here to process a Special Use Permit for a mixed use building with a bakery and café on the ground floor and a duplex on the second floor. The property is located at 802 W. John Street. It is located in the In Town Single Family Zoning District. The history and existing conditions of the property are reviewed including the fact that this property was previously under a Mitigation Plan. The building façade has undergone a number of improvements in the last few months. The look and feel of the building have been approved. An example of an unpaved parking surface is shown and Tina explains that this will have to be paved.

The proposal we have received for the building is from Hopscotch Bakery. Hopscotch currently partners with Art Mart and utilizes their kitchen as well as sells goods in the store. They are looking to have a commercial kitchen of their own so they can fulfill their custom orders. They will have a small café and some specialty grocery items. They are also exploring bakery/pastry classes with no more than eight attendees at one time. The second floor will be residential and the two one-bedroom apartments will be inhabited by the owners of Hopscotch.

Tina show the proposed site and landscape plan and explains the changes and waivers that are being requested. The proposed interior layout diagram is shown.

Tina reviews the proposed Conditions of Approval. A neighborhood meeting was held in November and approximately 35 to 40 people attended. The vast majority of the residents were supportive of the proposal. We did have approximately three people in addition to another resident who contacted me via email who expressed concern about the potential for congestion and parking issues along the street. I did have a discussion with Mr. Wampler about providing bike parking on site and he is willing to install three bike loops.

The Findings of Fact are reviewed.

Staff is recommending that Plan Commission forward case PL 16-0051 to City Council with your recommendation for approval after finding that the Findings of Fact have been met.

Dudley: Questions for staff?

Commission discusses how the applicant will mitigate the demand for parking, why additional parking was not added on the vacant land on the site, as well as other parking concerns.

Kowalski: We talked a lot about parking. Ultimately, we felt comfortable that with limited seating and five spaces on site with one being handicapped and a number of street space. It would really require that every seat be taken in the bakery plus more to really cause a parking crunch. This is more of a grab and go type of business rather than a sit at a restaurant for an hour and a half kind of thing. We did value the buffer and the trees on the west side of the lot and thought what is the right balance to providing some parking space but yet keeping a neighborhood character. The other option would be to cut down all the trees and paved a larger lot which may not be used all that frequently and with our lighting standards we thought that would be more detrimental than having to facilitate some street parking. Dudley: Any other questions? Bryan: I appreciate the consideration to preserving the neighborhood.

Dudley: Would the applicant like to speak?

Rick Aeilts, 411 West University is sworn in. I am an attorney representing the applicant Mr. Wampler. Mr. Wampler apologizes he could not make it back to town. We appreciate all the work that has been done by the staff. They have done a great job outlying this situation considering all the factors. Mr. Wampler grew up in this neighborhood, he attended South Side School and had three children who attended South Side. It was really nostalgic for his and he saw it as an opportunity to try and preserve this building that had a lot of history with him and his family. He spent a lot of time there with his childhood. He has invested in excess of 100,000 dollars at this point. The improvements are described. He thinks this will generate foot traffic and bike traffic. For these reasons we would ask that you propose to the City Council that this be approved. I am happy to answer any questions. I would like to turn this over to the business owners.

Kelly Hieronymus 1213 West Green and Kia Tate 809 East Washington are sworn in. Heironymus: We are the owners of Hopscotch. Tina did an excellent job. Discuss their concerns for the neighborhood and that they would like to foster a walking community. Bryan: Is a large part of your business catering? Tate: A lot of our business is catering, we supply items for Watson’s and Art Mart. We will keep our Art Mart location also. We do a lot of custom orders that are serviced off site. Carlson: I have a question regarding the cooking classes. Tate: This is just an idea we don’t have any specific plans to implement this within the first year. We are looking for ways to use this business as more than a café. She explains that these classes would be done on off peak hours.

Dudley: Thanks owners. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to cross examine staff or the applicant? Seeing none. Anyone in the audience who would like to make a general comment.

Susan Post 705 S. Pine is sworn in. I just have one comment and that is the concern about parking. Now that I am retired I see what goes on with parking. The peak hours for parking in that area are usually around 8:30 a.m. when they drop off the kids and about 3:00 p.m. when they come pick up the kids. Otherwise most of the sites on street are no utilized. She explains that today was a teacher day and when that happens the teachers tend to park on the streets. A couple of years ago we had all this mitigation about rain water and the storm sewers. If you look along John Street we have done a lot of stormwater plantings or rain gardens so I find it ironic that you are thinking about maybe we should have more parking on the side where there are big trees. As a biologist the thing you don’t want is a lot more asphalt for runoff. We have just mitigated a lot of this rain water and none of us have water in our basements at this time. I am not liking the idea of trying to have more parking other than their five spaces.

Michael Jeffers 705 S. Pine is sworn in. We have lived in the neighborhood 32 years. When we bought the property the Southside School was a park. Now it is a school. We wondered what was going to happen with parking. Nothing happened with parking. As my wife said there are a few peak hours. Whenever there is a special event the spaces are taken. Now that we have the potential for a wonderful new business in the neighborhood parking comes up again. We will survive. This is not going to be an issue. We see it every day all day. But, I am one hundred percent in favor of the new business and I agree we don’t need any more asphalt. We just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to mitigate the water. The new landscaping they are planning will help the situation.

Dudley: Would anyone else like to speak? Comments from the Commission?

Dudley: May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Bryan: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Dudley: May I have a motion to forward case PL16-0051 A Special Use Permit to Allow a Mixed Use Building with a Bakery and Café and a Duplex in the IT-SF1 In Town Single Family Zoning District at 802 W. John Street including the Findings of Fact. Bryan: Mr. Chairman I move we forward this case to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote. Dudley: Commented that he is concerned about parking but not enough to vote against it. I would like to have it kept track of. He wishes the owners much success.

Kowalski: This will go to City Council on January 17, 2017.

PL 16-0057 Preliminary Planned Development for South Center Research Park No. 13

Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Script is read

Van Buskirk: This is a Preliminary Planned Development for South Research Park No. 13. As with all of the planned developments in the South Research Park this is a requirement of the original annexation agreement. This area is south of the State Farm Center between Saint Mary’s Road and Hazelwood. It has a majority of its frontage along Fourth Street but also some in the open vacant lot along First. The area is currently all undeveloped vacant land. It is zoned primarily CO, Commercial Office but there are few parcels that are also zoned CG, Commercial General. It is also within the University District so there are some extra provisions for that relating to open space and parking requirements. An image from the site plan is shown and Eric explains the five buildings that are proposed. Phase 1 is the Technology, Development and Fabrication Center. It is the building in the center of the site. Phase 2 is a mixed retail and office building along the First Street frontage. The future phases of this plan is for three office buildings. In addition to this there is also the detention basin. There will be an upper and a lower in the south portion of the site. As with the building phasing plan there is phased access and circulation proposed. With Phase 1 for TDFC# 4 the building will take access through the existing parking lot for the iHotel. A diagram of how this will work is shown. This is an unusual situation. There will be a subsequent preliminary plat and this lot will actually be for ownership and leasing reasons. It will not have access off of a public street. There will however be an access easement as part of that process that will grant vehicular access to the building through the existing parking lot. The second phase of this development circulation plan will facilitate the mixed use building and again it will share an access point already existing for the Yahoo building but this lot doesn’t require the same waiver because it will have frontage access. It is simply sharing the access point in existence. The future phases of this development will provide three additional access points on to Fourth Street. Instead of starting at the edges and working their way in they are starting in the middle and working their way out. Using the land against First Street and behind the iHotel rather than building the access points.

There is a lot of open space within this development. There is a requirement for open space because it is a planned development. The open space is explained. In addition to open space the bike parking, signs and garbage locations are shown. He explains that there will a sign for TDFC #4 that will not be on the lot for the business that it is advertising. These waivers will work in tandem to allow this Research Park sign to be installed at that location near the access point on Saint Mary’s. The sign will be installed with the bounds of the easement.

Staff is recommending that the Plan Commission forward this to the City Council with your recommendation for approval after finding that it meets the Criteria. The applicant is here. I did receive some comments regarding concerns about the lack of pedestrian connections within the site. The proposal does have a number of sidewalks on the site. In particular one of their strengths is that there are a lot of connections between parking and the individual developments but some of the comments we received expressed concerns about connections between individual buildings and also connections to Fourth Street. They also indicated that they were generally supportive of the expansion of the Research Park. We provided suggestions about working with the developer and the University earlier on in the process to better implement sidewalks as they come along. The City doesn’t have a strong regulatory requirement to require internal circulation because they aren’t dedicating public right-of-way in these sort of east/west access roads. They are more University controlled. Any questions?

Commission discuss building access issues. Bruce explains why these building are being tucked back behind others buildings and clarifies that access will be taken through the iHotel parking lot. The timeline for the project is also discussed as well as the sign waiver and why this will not set a precedent.

Ryan Murphy 410 N. Prairie is sworn in. I don’t have any other additional information to provide I am here to answer any questions on behalf of the developer. I appreciate the time the City of Champaign and the Commission have spent on this.

Dudley: Any questions for the applicant. Would anyone in the audience like to cross examine the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment regarding the application?

Dudley: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Bryan: So Moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Dudley: I will ask for a motion to forward case PL 16-0057 Preliminary Planned Development for South Center Research Park No. 13 including waivers and Findings of Fact. Bryan: I move that such action be forward to the City Council with our recommendation for approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Kowalski: This will also go to City Council on January 17, 2017.

Kowalski: Introduces Kathryn Cataldo, Assistant City Attorney.

Adjourned at 5:35.