Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met May 17.

Here is the minutes as provided by the commission:

The minutes of the May 3, 2017 meeting were unanimously approved and accepted as submitted.

Staff is sworn

PL16-0054 and PL16-0055 McGath Farms-Longhorn Hills Annexation Agreement and

Preliminary Final Plat

Knight: Before we start on the cases I would like to note for the public, in case anyone is here

for the Major Amendment to the Special Use Permit to Allow a Bar/Tavern in the CI,

Commercial Industrial Zoning District at 601 N. Country Fair Drive, this item is being continued

to the June 7, 2016 meeting

Marino: This is the Annexation Agreement and Preliminary/Final Plat for the McGath Farms -

Longhorn Hills property. Jeff explains where this property is located and a location map is

shown. There are parts of the property that are contiguous to the City of Champaign. There are

several single family homes on this property. There are two different property owners. Ms.

McGath owns and lives in one of the homes and Mr. Meyers lives in a house on the northern

portion of the property. Ms. McGath would like to relocate some of the lot lines to bring these

single family homes into compliance with the City of Champaign regulations and the County

regulations for single family homes. There is a mobile home, two single family homes and a

series of barns on the southern portion of the property. These properties are all on one lot. In

order for Ms. McGath to get a building permit to build a new home for one of her family

members the County has told her she needs to work with the City of Champaign and bring this

property into the City’s regulations for subdivisions. The City and the County do not allow more

than one principal structure on one lot for single family homes. Since all of these properties are

on one lot they will need to be subdivided and all of them put on their own lots. She would then

like to tear one of the homes down and build a new home for one of her family members.

Currently, all the residents of these homes except for Mr. Meyers are family members of Ms.

McGath. She would simply like to relocate the lot lines to bring this into compliance and allow

one of the homes to rebuilt. Because of the relocation of the lot lines it triggers an annexation

agreement and there are some zoning issues that will be addressed as part of this annexation

agreement. Photos of the site are shown. Jeff explains that since Ms. McGath is not selling of

any of the lots for a profit the requirements for sidewalks and street lights are being waived. If

this property is sold these requirements will be required of the new buyer.

The Future Land Use map is shown and explained. The preliminary/final plat is shown and

explained. There are no development plans as of now. The annexation agreement will address

the infrastructure improvements along Duncan Road. There is another component that Ms.

McGath has requested. The component requested is an amortization period, we have done this

with other annexation agreements. For example, when someone has been required to do an

annexation agreement and a plat with the City we have given them a period of time before they

annexation into the City. One development recently that is coming into play is Fields South

East. We gave them 10 years before they had to annex even though we did an annexation

agreement 10 years ago. That annexation agreement was actually for fire service. There have

been other annexation agreements where we have given a period of time once the annexation

agreement has been approved before they are actually annexed. It gives the resident the

opportunity to prepare for annexation and address any zoning issues and tax implications that

come with annexation. Jeff explains that the agreement will address the Longhorn Cattle on the

property and the plans for their removal after the 10-year period. Jeff discusses the fact that the

property to the west is owned by one property owner and the need for access to this property.

The current access points to the McGath lots are discussed and that will be allowed to stay. Jeff

talks about development to the west, road alignment and access points in the future. He indicates

that staff was contacted today by the neighboring owner who is concerned about future road

connections, existing driveways and how a future trail would connect. We didn’t initially

address these concerns in the annexation agreement but that is something that Ms. McGath is

open to addressing. The attorney for the adjacent developer is here and he may be able to

expand on these issues. This is something to consider as we move forward. Today we might

want to include language in the annexation agreement that potentially would reserve the

opportunity to have a right-of-way dedicated in the future for an east/west road through this site.

Any questions?

Knight: The Plan Commission’s role in addressing annexation agreements is to address any

land use, zoning or subdivision kinds of issues. There is also a preliminary plat involved in this

case. The public hearing and final approval of an annexation agreement under State law is at the

City Council level. If after hearing testimony today the Plan Commission felt like it was

appropriate to include language that addressed future access and dedication of right-of-way at an

appropriate time you could indicate such in your motion and the language would be worked out

before City Council considers this at their public hearing. You don’t have to craft specific

language today. You could include an intent in your motion if you chose to do so. The other

point that was raised by the developers attorney is the trail connection. Bruce explains where the

dedicated right-of-way would be and that it would not be the McGaths responsibility to build this

unless there was additional development on the property. But, if they agree to dedicate right-of-

way at a location designated by the City Engineer when it is known where that should be located.

Then it would be the developer’s responsibility, on the other side, to continue those

improvements.

Bryan: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this case?

Susanne Hendren of 2901 Greystone Place is sworn in. I don’t have any concerns about this

annexation but, I have one questions and one comment. To the north of Greystone along Duncan

Road there is a five-acre parcel that is not part of the City of Champaign. When this annexation

goes into effect that means that five-acres parcel will be surrounded. Does that mean it will

automatically be annexed to the City? Knight: As Jeff just presented the McGath property will

not annexed for ten years so the property will not be surrounded for at least ten years. It could be

involuntarily annexed at that point. That would be a City Council decision to make. Hendren: I

have one comment. One behalf of all of the residents of Greystone we would like the Longhorn

Steers to stay as long as possible. We love them.

Denise Bates, Thomas, Mamer and Haughey is sworn in. I represent Ms. McGath and Mr,

Meyer. My clients are in support of this moving forward and this annexation taking place and

they are here and available if you have any questions.

Pat Fitzgerald, Meyer Capel is sworn in. I am appearing before you on behalf of Peter

Creighton who is the sole owner of the property that is west of the property. In visiting with Mr.

Creighton, he has an issue with this proposed annexation. I contacted City staff regarding these

concerns. The material issue is, that the Peter Creighton discussions have focused on the

extension of a public multi-use trail that would connect a bridge over Interstate 57 through

Peter’s land with the ultimate destination being a connection to Duncan Road. In reviewing the

instant annexation agreement it didn’t necessarily provide for that connection. That is one issue I

raised with Mr. Marino and it sounds like there has been some favorable discussion with Ms.

McGath and her Council. We would certainly support this as something being included in your

recommendations to City Council. Under the guise of planning, we are at the Plan Commission

meeting today in the intent of planning we do not want to impose any financial burden on Ms.

McGath as she is not developing her land. We understand that what she is doing is more

procedural in nature and she is not a for-profit developer and we are not looking to increase her

financial burden at all. But, do feel it is appropriate at this time to plan for the future connection

of the trail to Duncan and similarly the street connection. Again, we are just planning for the

reservation if it becomes necessary and we are certainly fine with deferring it and including it

being up to the City of Champaign Engineers decision as to the ultimate location. We are not

attempting to dictate that in any fashion other than to just plan for the future that at some point it

seems reasonable and appropriate that there is street access that would tie into that. This is Mr.

Creighton’s concerns and I my happy to address any questions.

Bryan: Any questions? Knight: If it is Plan Commissions inclination that this be addressed.

The motion should include a motion that is consistent with what is in the staff report with the

addition that the future dedication of right-of-way be addressed in the annexation agreement for

City Council consideration. Elmore: How will this be addressed in text? Knight: We need to

work out the details of specific language and will need to work this out before the City Council

meeting. Ms. McGath and her attorney would need to sign off on the language. But the concept

in my mind is that there will be language in there that states at the request of the City Engineer

that the right-of-way would be dedicated and that request would be based on a need for a

connection coming from the west. We wouldn’t try and specify a location at this time. There is

not enough information about the development plan for the property to the west to be able to do

that. It would be a function of just a commitment to work with the City at the time and dedicate

the right-of-way in the appropriate location. Bryan: Any other questions or comments?

Cole: I move that the public hearing be closed. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Cole: There must be some coordination of the access through this property with property to the

west for the benefit of all the developers involved and the community. My motion is we

forward cases PL16-0054 and PL16-0055 to the City Council with our recommendation of

approval and incorporating therein a recommendation to the City Council that resolution of

issues of future access, roadway and trail development, be resolved by the discussions between

the owners, developers and City Staff which would then be incorporated into the annexation

agreement. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Knight: This will go to City Council on June 6, 2017.

Case PL 17-0016 Text Amendment to Section 37-166 and Section 37-604 of the Champaign

Zoning Ordinance to amended the code regarding the use of telecommunication devices in

the Public Right-of-Way

Marino: This is an amendment to the telecommunications ordinance in the public right-of-way.

This is how it pertains to Chapter 37 which is the zoning ordinance. This was brought to the

Plan Commission in December 2016. The former Assistant City Attorney and I did a joint

presentation on the changing needs for telecommunication services in our community. Jeff gives

the background on previous amendments to this section of the Code.

We have recently had a request for antennas and infrastructure in the public row. In January of

2017, City Council approved an amendment that allowed telecommunication and infrastructure

in the public right-of-way. As a result of that amendment we have been in contact with service

providers and learned that the amendment did not meet the needs of the providers to provide

citizens with the needs they require for the amount of data needed.

Jeff explains how these small antenna’s that are being requested will work and where they will

be located.

The proposed changes are discussed and explained. The changes to Chapter 37 are explained.

Any questions?

Knight: Explains that we have been working with service providers to make sure citizens are

getting good access to service while we are still protecting the aesthetics of the community.

Bryan: This is accommodating the changes in technology needs. Knight: Explains that the tall

towers will not go away.

Bryan: Anyone in the audience who would like to address this text amendment? May I have a

motion to close the public hearing. Cole: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes”

vote.

Cole: I move that we forward case PL17-0016 to the City Council with our recommendation for

approval. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Knight: This will go to City Council on June 6, 2017.

PL17-0017 Text Amendment to Article VI of the Champaign Zoning Ordinance to revise

the regulations governing applications for, approval of, and amendments to Planned

Developments

LeRoy: I am here to discuss the updated to the Planned Development Ordinance. This is a case

that has been before you in a couple of different formats including most recently a Study

Session. Today, I would like to present the proposed changes for your recommendation for

approval. The timeline that was pursued on this project is reviewed. Ben explains that he is

going to go through the issues and concerns that were discussed in March briefly. The proposed

revisions are explained. The eligibility requirements are explained and the changes that have

been made since the last meeting are identified. The application and approval process has not

changed but the minor amendments are explained. Waivers and conditions are reviewed. The

findings have not changed since the last meeting.

Ben explains that the Plan Development standards that currently exist in the Ordinance are going

away. These were well intentioned but staff found them difficult to reform. It is difficult to craft

a one size fits all set of standards given the wide variety of planned developments that we

receive. Any standards that we adopt would be waivable. The amendment process is reviewed

and the process of which changes might be handled administratively is explained.

Staff recommends that the Plan Commission forward this to City Council with your

recommendation for approval. Any questions?

Elmore: This is another example of good and thorough work especially in terms of gathering

input from multiple sources. I appreciate the effort.

Cole: I will echo Don’s comment by simply reminding a few people that when I gave my

comments earlier at a Study Session my comments were directed to the purpose provision and

separating out the language that was too detailed to be associated with a purpose clause and it is

very well done. It is very nicely drafted and revised to make it workable. I also appreciate it.

Bryan: Would anyone in the audience wish to address this amendment. Seeing none. Is there a

motion to close the public hearing? Cole: So moved. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes”

vote.

Bryan: The motion is before you as it is stated here PL 17-0017 Text Amendment to Article VI

of the Zoning Ordinance to revise the regulations governing applications for, approval of, and

amendments to the Planned Developments. Is there a motion? Cole: So moved. Elmore:

Seconds. Unanimous “yes: vote.

Knight: This will also go to the June 6, 2017 City Council meeting.

PL 17-0022 Clean Up Text Amendment to the Champaign Zoning Ordinance to define

“Microbrewery” and “Brewery” and to permit them in Industrial and Commercial

Districts

Kowalski: If this case sounds familiar to you, it should, because it was presented back in

January 2016. This passed and was adopted. We did another text amendment the next year and

we accidentally left out this amendment. Since this was an act of City Council we need to

readopt these regulations.

Rob explains the definitions of Brewery, Microbrewery and a Tasting Room. We have a

microbrewery in town. This is the Blind Pig on Market Street. Photos of tasting rooms are

shown and he explains in which zoning districts these types of establishments would be allowed

in and any regulations that would apply to them.

Staff recommends that this be forwarded to the June 6, 2017 City Council meeting.

Knight: The accidental removal of this came because we relied on language from Municode a

year after we had adopted something and realized the Municode had not codified this amendment

into the Code. Oversight on our part. We are working with Municode to get prompter response

to the adoption of code change because architects, engineers and developers are relying on

Municode entirely and may spend a lot of money on reliance on something they read on

Municode and find out later it has been changed.

Bryan: Any other questions or comments from the Commission? Anyone in the audience wish

to address this text amendment.

Cole: I move that the public hearing be closed. Elmore: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Bryan: Do we have a motion to forward this text amendment to City Council for adoption?

Cole: So moved. Carlson: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Cole: Opens case PL 17-0013 A Major Amendment to Special Use Permit to Allow a

Bar/Tavern in the CI, Commercial Industrial Zoning District at 601 N. Country Fair Drive and

moves that this case be continued to the June 7, 2017 Plan Commission Meeting. Elmore:

Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Adjourned 4:55

http://documents.ci.champaign.il.us/v/BwqebO6?hp=0B9AX7CNToF-5WU9jM2RxMlVFRjA%2C0B9AX7CNToF-5cGE2R0tHMjd2MWM%2C0BwyGnHue8C6RWTFDUHROd3JlV2M%2C0Bz2u2Y2vvnN6eFJFZ2F3VXBsOTA&ht=0B9AX7CNToF-5ei1tS1IyOC1ycWc