Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met October 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

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

Roll Call:

Members Present: Cole, Bryan, Elmore, Dudley, Wakefield, Kroencke

Staff Present: Knight, Kowalski, Yu, Marino, Grady, LeRoy, Rains Lowe

Staff is sworn

Minutes of September 20, 2017 approved.

PL17-0045 Text Amendment to the Champaign Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate the Upper Story Stepback Requirement.

LeRoy: Today’s case is a text amendment proposing to eliminate the upper story stepback requirement. Ben gives background on how the requirement came about and the challenges that have come out of this requirement.

What an upper story stepback means is explained and photos of examples are shown. Ben also explains the difference between a setback and a stepback. The history of the requirement is explained and why this requirement was originally adopted. Ben describes the issues that came up with this requirement when projects were in the design process.

In 2016, recognizing the challenges we had and the comments we had received over the year from developers we modified the upper story stepback requirement in two ways. First, we limited the application of the requirement to buildings that were greater than 85 feet tall and changed the cut off portion of when the stepback needed to kick in to 35 feet rather than three stories. This was intended to give more flexibility to developers. The design problems have continued. The issues are explained and the fact that this regulation causes a substantial burden to the developer with very minimal public benefit.

Staff proposes eliminating the upper story stepback requirement.

Dudley: Any questions or comments?

Elmore: Because these regulations have changed over the last few years. I can’t think of a building that would be potential worst-case scenario if we eliminated this requirement? LeRoy: One example is at the corner of 4th and Green. One of the buildings was built prior to the requirement and the other was built after the requirement.

Wakefield: You came to us about reducing the stepback previously, what has changed since then that makes you want to eliminate the regulation? LeRoy: Explains that we have a proposal for a downtown hotel development which is much like the hotel that was built on Lot J that had trouble with this requirement. I would say this reflects our recognition that the fix we were trying to accomplish with the 2016 amendment was not successful. The only thing we fixed was eliminating the requirement as applied to buildings under 85 feet. It makes sense to us now that we realize we did not solve the problems for buildings over 85 feet and it was perhaps an oversight to not just eliminate it in 2016.

Kowalski: There are two or three other projects where architects have approached us because they are having trouble with the requirement. As for the hotel it is very hard when you are stacking floor of the exact same design. This is very hard to comply with due to plumbing.

Knight: One of the issues we have observed in an environment where your mixed-use buildings are retail and office changing the floor plate is a lot easier. Because you can have different shapes and sizes of office space. Our mixed-use development in this community has been almost entirely ground floor commercial and upper floor residential or hotel development. In both cases they want to maintain the same floor plate all the way up. They want the plumbing to be able to go up the same corridor. We have repeatedly heard that this is a challenge. We have often had to deal with it by granting some kind of flexibility from it through Planned Developments.

Dudley: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this issue?

Wakefield: After going through what has been presented I would like to comment on cost, the architectural structure from my perspective and experience as a design professional.

Commissioner Wakefield shares his opinions on the looming aspect, feeling of crowding, structure and floor plans and layout issues.

Commissioner Cole comments on the assumed aesthetics for the stepback and setback regulations and shares that he feels the hotel on Lot J was well done. He discusses the prior Ordinance changes and he feels that the market can adjust to changes but the public wants to go downtown and find it attractive. The buildings with no stepback are a disappointment.

Elmore: I am correct for the Lot J development that there a waiver required for them to build the stairwells that way? Knight: Yes, it was a Planned Development and the flexibility was granted from the design standards the required the stepback. Elmore: I agree that would be something we would want to avoid. Having to give waivers every time would not work. It needs to be built in the requirement. The difficulty for me is the negligible benefit. I am not unsympathetic to the added cost, but you must balance that against what is really the aesthetic value.

Dudley: I am looking more from an aesthetic or canyon approach that we get into. He discusses the buildings that we have and the fact that these types of buildings are not side by side. From my perspective with a stepback or no stepback I don’t see that either one is really a potential issue.

Knight: There has been a number of points raised, sounds like there are some concerns about the straight proposal to eliminate the requirement. Rather than having a split vote or a “no” vote or a recommendation to deny or even a recommendation to approve with a split vote of the Commission it would be preferable from a staff perspective if you would continue the public hearing and the case and let us perhaps work on trying to refine the language in a way that might address the issues that have come up and then bring this back to you at your next meeting.

Dudley: Can I have a motion to continue this issue to the next meeting? Cole: I move that PL17-0045 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. This hearing is not closed but rather continued. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote

Future Downtown Plaza and Neil Street Corridor Improvement Plan Update Study Session

Knight: We are early in the stage of studying both the Neil Street Corridor and a possible design for a plaza in the Neil and Washington lot. I want to give credit to both Jeff and Lacey for going to extraordinary lengths to get public input on these ideas. The kind of feedback we are getting is exciting. The idea of going to where the people are has been accomplished.

Rains Lowe: Explains that they will be giving and update on the Plaza Project and the Neil Street Corridor Project. These projects have overlapping boundaries, so they are being presented together. This effort started out of a Council Goal “Our City Promotes Quality of Life for all Citizens”.

The plaza project area is shown as well as the study area for the Neil Street Corridor Project. She explains that the market analysis done in 2015 was a trigger for looking at the larger corridor. One of the recommendations of that market analysis was the need for “strategic patience”. The idea that throwing incentives at the problem in the interchange area was not going to make the vacant lots adjacent to I-74 appealing. We really needed to look to investing in the infrastructure and investing in the corridor to make the south side of I-74 more competitive and appealing as a gateway.

Council gave direction to move forward on the future plaza project.

Project overlap is discussed and how the challenges that are there now can be addressed. One of the comments that we heard is “it works just fine for special events, doesn’t it”. Lacey explains the challenges of putting on events in the plaza area and what things are done to make the spaces work and how much work is involved.

The project goals and values that were set at the beginning of the project are explained. What is a ‘Placemaking Plan”? Lacey explains this is a plan that relies extensively on community input, builds on the unique identity of the place and of our community, and it also determines the functionality. Who will use the space and what will they use it for. What activities will it enable and what amenities and facilities are needed to enable those activities and how will the space be managed and funded on an on-going basis. That is the difference between doing a Concept Design and a full Place Making Plan.

This is a three-phased process. We are coming to a close on phase 1. She explains the steps that have been taken in phase 1 and what will take place in phases 2 and 3.

Lacey explains the events that staff has attended get public input. She discusses what staff has learned so far from public events and focus groups. She explains that they have learned that people want something done that celebrates our unique community attributes, something within the space should be selfie worthy, but people just want the basics. Places to sit, shade, landscaping, and accessible parking. There has been a lot of support for this idea.

A Visual Preference Survey was done by several groups. This will eventually be translated into an on-line survey. There were 24 images that were suggested throughout the process and people were given three dots where they could vote on their favorites. Lacey explains the preferences that came out of this survey included an ice skating rink, interactive water feature, multi-purpose and flexible space, dynamic light elements, moveable outdoor seating and dining space, and space for the farmers market.

As far as expected outcomes we want to understand how the community wants to use the space. The design should be driven by how our residents and visitors want to use the space. An understanding of the relationship between the surrounding area and a conceptual design of the space to understand what type of investment we need to get this done. Following that we will be launching a fund-raising effort at the culmination of this phase. We do want to understand some partnership opportunities both for fund raising and on-going management.

Lacey explains the ways to share your ideas and give input on the project. Any questions?

Kroencke: Have you been into the businesses surrounding the plaza? Have you received any resistance to this? Rains Lowe: She explains that they have been in touch with all the owners and one of the biggest concerns is about access to the front of those businesses that front right on the future plaza space. She explains that there are design solutions that staff is exploring.

Cole: One of the consequences of events brings up the fact that many restaurants have up signs that they do not have a public restroom. Commissioner Cole explains that this is a concern. There should be several restrooms that are well lighted and lockable.

Elmore: I would follow up on Commissioners Cole’s comment and say as a downtown business owner that would have been one of my top choices. This has been requested many times outside of the plaza planning. I am very excited and have been fortunate to be in a couple of the focus group meetings. I like the fact that the planning is being done right with getting the public input.

Dudley: The plaza in its current state provides a significant amount of convenient parking. My assumption is that it will be to push the parking to the deck across the street. Rains Lowe: We are looking at doing a parking analysis. As more development occurs at Washington and Walnut there will be a need for more parking and the City owns some parcels of land.

Dudley: There is a lot directly north at Washington that is vacant. This area with a more permanent structure for convenience centers would be a good possibility.

Marino: There were six themes that were identified as part of the planning process for the Neil Street Corridor Improvement Plan. The City is working with a consultant to create this plan. Jeff explains that currently we are in the end of phase I and heading into phase 2. What has been accomplished in phase 1 is explained. Jeff notes that on Thursday, October 26th there will be a public workshop everyone is invited. Jeff details what has been learned so far and how the corridor is viewed in three segments by a lot of citizens. What the three segments are is explained.

I would like to do an input process now and get your input on several different questions.

What is your favorite part of the Neil Street Corridor?

Wakefield: I like the development of the scenery such as plantings and sustainability and circulation of pedestrians and bicycles. I think there is a lot of potential there. What I am not sure about is how to develop the land on either side of that corridor. What are the thoughts? What is the public thinking about that? Both overall and more locally to where we are developing. I also think about how we develop this. Who is it being developed for? The people in the community or for the visitor? What aspects play to which one? I would imagine if we develop it for the community then the visitor would have an experience. We should not solely think about visitors. I like that we are taking an opportunity to create a good environment for someone who is coming into the community that leads into the downtown which is supposed to be the livelihood of the community.

Elmore: My favorite park is the middle section from Bradley to the railroad tracks or a little farther south. Stratton School is there, Columbia School has had some work done to it and there is a big open space that I keep thinking of things you could do. There is the Blue Line Station Building where Surface 51 is. There is a lot of potential here with the new developments. It is not the one that is going to get the quickest bang for your buck. I like this area and think about what has been done and what can still be done.

Cole: A feature that is attractive to residents as well as visitors must be the street. When I imagine going from the interstate down to University I see this as being a nice smooth and very clearly marked street with very clear signage. That’s what people remember when they visit an area. I agree that the interest in the area from Columbia down to the post office. It is full of potential. A lot of that is private property. I don’t know what you can do with private property but there are corners where you can put art.

Dudley: I like the third section and that is because of the plaza and what has been able to be utilized there. I think enhancing the plaza is going to certainly improve what we are doing. I pick that as the favorite part. The Interstate to Bradley is very restrictive and not a very inviting place.

Bryan: I have to say the south third. I like cruising through downtown. I agree that street attention can creatively help here so people can move through and at the same time enjoy what is going on. The middle portion is a lot more fun to see.

Kroencke: I have a lot of confidence that the City will do the right thing in the third part of the corridor. My favorite part is where you come off the Interstate. I think there is opportunity to create a great experience in this area.

Jeff reviews the feedback received so far from the input sessions on what is your favorite part of the corridor.

What do you want the Neil Corridor to be?

Kroencke: I want it to be welcoming to the community and visitors. There is something about coming into an inviting community.

Bryan: Welcoming is an important and the efficiency of getting through for people who are aren’t going downtown.

Dudley: The welcoming factor. When we came to this community 40 years ago there was a thriving hotel and good restaurant at that intersection. Both of which are gone at this point and the lots sit undeveloped. There is some great opportunity with that. The comment about the condition of the roadway coming down the corridor. I had the opportunity to get off at the Curtis Road Interchange and the road is excellent. Something along that line would be beneficial.

Cole: I think it should be a continuously noticeable feature in its own right all the way down. You can’t have a nice few properties and then something unsightly, then an isolated art feature, then a vacant lot with weeds. Whatever is done has to be designed so that the corridor itself is one organic element.

Elmore: There are some places that we travel and when you get to that City you get to a certain place in the City and then you have an ah ha moment. We have one here, but it is modest compared to others. When you are coming home west or south on Interstate 72 and you hit University and Mattis and that stop light where there are all the trees it is very welcoming. That is the reaction I would like to see this area generate.

Wakefield: I think as a starting point welcoming but, what is that? Any intersection can have commercial; how is it going to welcoming? It must draw you in somehow. What opportunities can be taken organically that will signify this is something different.

Jeff reviews the feedback received so far from the input sessions on what do you want Corridor to be.

What is your least favorite part of the Neil Street Corridor?

Wakefield: Dealing with what is already there that is not public. It is hard to take control of these types of elements. There will have to collaboration with private property owners to enhance these spaces to benefit the owner and the public as a whole.

Elmore: My least favorite parts are the bare spots they are orphans and give the perception that nobody cares enough to redevelop these. There are places that should be valuable pieces of property but have never been developed.

Cole: It is the intersection of Washington and Neil. Suddenly you are in a different environment, it is more crowded, the traffic pattern is a little impractical. There needs to be a pattern designed that allows someone to pass through easily. It is a very attractive block and a half from Main Street to the City Building. But the street is not straight, it is narrow and there are sidewalks cafes on both sides. This is eventually going to be a little scary. I don’t know what to do about traffic passing through that area safely and very often people do not think about how fast they are going. Of course, you have the relatively new pedestrian signs that designate a walking area where the pedestrian has the right-of-way. If you have one vehicle stop and another coming up along side who doesn’t know why the first car stopped someone is going to get killed. It is the crowding problem.

Dudley: The crosswalks are an issue. I have alluded to my least favorite. That is the first section. It is an older section of town.

Bryan: I agree with Mr. Dudley and Mr. Wakefield that it is the northern most part. I have talked to a number of people who are concerned about the proximity of café seating and traffic.

Kroencke: There is not much left to be said. The length of the corridor. I think with Paul’s comments that there is a good opportunity to lose people in between the Interstate and downtown.

Jeff reviews the feedback received so far from the input sessions on what is your least favorite part of the corridor.

What don’t you want the Neil Street Corridor to be?

Kroencke: I am not sure that it can be any worse than it is now. Whatever, we make it into I have confidence in the staff that it is going to be better. It will be someplace that will be welcoming and invite people into the community.

Bryan: I would confess my appreciation to the staff and to the planning as well. I don’t think we can over plan the corridor to much. We can try to do to much. There are other things on adjacent properties that will be important to make it be what it is going to be. Dampening the speed is very important.

Dudley: I really don’t know. We have covered a lot of things that it can be. I agree with earlier comments. It can be a racetrack coming through there. Earlier comments suggested a by-pass for people who want to get through more quickly would be a benefit. I don’t want to see it by a raceway.

Cole: I don’t want it to be a Potemkin Village. I don’t want it to look like it has been designed and put down in the area. Commissioner Bryan’s comment about properties that might be used for pass through views was really insightful. If that were possible to give this area some depth that would be very helpful.

Elmore: I am really just stating this another way. I don’t want it to be a thruway thru downtown. I want it to be an attractive path to downtown. I think this can all be managed with some modern traffic handling technology. It needs good traffic calming.

Wakefield: I wouldn’t want it to be a long corridor of commercial buildings on both sides.

Jeff reviews the feedback received so far from the input sessions on what don’t you want to corridor to be.

Jeff details the public input opportunities coming up and shares the website addresses. These meetings will be noticed so the Commission can all attend.

Knight: City Council approved Bret Kroencke’s reappointed as a regular commissioner and PJ Trautman was appointed as an alternate commissioner.

Adjourned at 5:36 p.m.

http://documents.ci.champaign.il.us/v/0BwyGnHue8C6RUE05bUs4Vy1QRlU