Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met Nov. 1.

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, Carlson, Trautman, Reynolds, Dudley, Wakefield, Kroencke

Staff Present: Marino, Phillips, LeRoy, VanBuskirk, Yu, Vandeventer

Staff is sworn

Minutes of October 18, 2017 approved.

PL17-0045 Text Amendment to the Champaign Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the upper story stepback requirement. (Continued from October 18, 2017 meeting)

LeRoy: I am going to recap this presentation since there were three Commissioners not at the October 18, 2017 meeting that are here today. Ben gives a recap of what the upper story stepback requirement is and explains that two alternatives will be given today and staff is recommending that the alternative to eliminate is approved.

Photos of examples of stepback are shown and the timeline of the history of this requirement and the changes that have been made to it is explained. Ben reviews the justifications for this change and explains that it is felt that the public benefit of this requirement is minimal.

After receiving feedback at the last meeting staff has taken the comments into consideration and came up with two alternatives:

1. Eliminate the upper story stepback requirement entirely. 2. Modify the upper story setback requirement as follows: For any building in the CB3 district greater than 85 feet in height measured from grade, excluding the height of HV/AC, mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, stairwell shafts, or other similar appurtenances installed on the roof, at least 50% of the portion of any façade facing a public street that is more than thirty-five (35) feet above grade must be stepped back a minimum of five (5) feet from the façade at ground level. This requirement shall only apply to exterior walls seventy-five (75) feet in length or greater.

Staff is recommending eliminating the upper story stepback requirement (Alternative 1). Any questions or discussion?

Elmore: I like the two provisions. My concern is that by restricting it to the CB3 maybe we aren’t thinking ahead enough. Because it seems like the attention is focused there because that is where we see the architectural issues. But, we are also expanding in other parts of the city. Did that go into this process? LeRoy: Explains that yes staff did discuss this. Currently the requirement only applies in CB2 and CB3. It is in the code for CB1 but this is the Urban Fringe Central Business District and this district has a height limit of 85 feet, so you will never trigger this requirement. We are basically talking about should it be in Downtown and Campustown or just Campustown. The reason that our alternatives proposes just making it effective in Campustown is two-fold. This is a requirement that originally only applied to Campustown and that is where we continue to get the tallest buildings and that is the zoning district with the tallest height limit. It is our thought to bring that back to where it was initially intended. Downtown has different block sizes and tighter lot sizes as well as different land acquisition patterns than seen in Campustown. We think it is more likely that people will have site challenges when dealing with a Downtown site than with a Campustown site. Our streets go a little sideways Downtown and some of the blocks are narrow. That is the rational for proposing the stepback just in CB 3.

Reynolds: Is the sole purpose of this thing for a tunnel avoidance problem? Is there any other reason why cities would have this regulation? LeRoy: When I looked at our records from 2009 for the justification of this Ordinance it was for the crowding and looming feeling. It is an aesthetic purpose. There are tall building that produce a wind tunnel effect but I don’t believe that a five foot stepback changes that. You can talk about light coming down to the street but I think when we are talking about buildings that are this tall I don’t think there is much impact in the way of sunlight loss. I think primarily this is for pedestrians. Reynolds: Is this a common feature in other zoning ordinances of cities our size? I assure big cities rarely do this. LeRoy: Some do and it is a mixed bag. I can’t speak to our pier cities. I can tell you in larger cities they have gone back and forth on what they do with stepbacks. Some cities get really technical. Reynolds: If this is a fairly common feature it is not clear why the builders would be having so much trouble with it. Is there something about our ordinance that makes it particularly hard or everywhere that you have one of these people are having problems. LeRoy: I can’t say that I have the comparative knowledge to speak to that. Reynolds: Can someone tell me what the problem was?

Dudley: Any other questions?

Reynolds: I want to know why there were issues with this? LeRoy: I think the Commission was interested in having an alternative.

Wakefield: I made a lot of the comments and I started with the reason why should we would change this. Is it whether we feel that stepbacks need to happen at all. Visually or letting light in whatever that reason is. We had it because of those issues. What is being brought to staff is that this requirement is creating difficulty in the development and design structure which I argue not necessarily the case. One had to do basically with the structure and how it comes down. That the five foot makes it kind awkward and expensive. I see that initially when they talked about wood frame building that this was a possibility. But, when we are talking about buildings that are 85 feet and above that gets you into a building classification that your structure is steel or concrete which is the most expensive type of building to being with because of the all the fire ratings. To suggest that five foot structure line is minimal compared to cost of the entire building. I felt that this should not be a justification of why we should do it. Then there was talk about the justification of the stairs. That there is difficulty when a stair is pushed back and how do you come down and get out of the building. What I argued was that nothing says you must have it exit the building from a stairway. It can be setback or open from the stairway forward. I have done a number of buildings myself that had this exact situation because I had to deal with this. Was there a large expense to doing this absolutely not. It was an argument against those reasonings why we should except them. I still think we should go back to; do we want this whether it is aesthetics or whether it is light and is it needed. Reynolds: So there wasn’t a lot of discussion about the public benefit. I am all in favor of government regulations, but I can’t for the life of me so how this makes a difference. Just reading this I don’t understand the tunnel issue. Wakefield: I mentioned last time that the five foot from a light standpoint doesn’t really have any effect. If we really want that to happen than we need to push it to ten to fifteen feet back to have any kind of effect. That gets to, is there an aesthetic reason that you have the sense of it being looming or canyon effect. Visually once stuff is setback slightly it feels slightly more open but it is not going to let you have anymore light coming down. If that is a concern than we should have the discussion with staff at some point about making it more than five feet which will make it more difficult for developers because they are going to lose a lot of valuable rentable usable space. Is that beneficial to the overall community to do that?

Cole: In the interest of public awareness of what this is really about. One more element would be if you could tell us exactly where the change in the Central Business District would apply. What parts of Downtown and Campustown will this apply too? LeRoy: Pulls up a map and shows the area that this will apply too and explains the changes in the Commercial Zoning Districts that were made earlier this year. Cole: The stepback requirement if left alone will apply in all the CB Districts if not modified? LeRoy: Yes. Commissioner reviews the alternatives.

Elmore: The concern for me is the subjective aesthetic benefits on the one hand and the argument for the objective benefits which is the financial side. Dan brought up the point that the financial side can be done if you know what you are working with.

Reynolds: What is the aesthetic benefit of this? I don’t see it? Dudley: If you stand at one end of Green Street and look down this is primarily what we are talking about. If every lot as you went down the street was 100 feet high, you would have the tunnel effect and would not be aesthetically pleasing. I don’t think this will happen in our life time. Yes, they will continue to building tall buildings. But, to see it as a tunnel effect running the full length of that district I don’t see that. I see it as an aesthetic point of view. I do think that there may be some economic issues where having a stepback you are giving up some leasable area in those floors that go above that. I know there are couple of developer and architects here that might be able to speak to some of those issues.

Dudley: I will open it to the floor if anyone would like to speak to the issue. Please step forward and state your name and address.

Pat Fitzgerald 306 W. Church is sworn in. I would like to share with you my support to the staff and staffs recommended outcome of the eliminating the text amendment. I think we have a great community. Champaign is green and growing and staff deserve a great deal of credit for that. There are always people lining up to take credit. The heavy lifting is done, most of the times, at the staff level. In this particular case I do support the staff on this particular concept. I think to mandate design, mandate the stepback results in effect that we want a wedding cake affect design style in our community. If every building from here going forward looks the same that is not good. With that said we do have the benefit of members of the design community with us in the audience today.

Scott Kunkel, 505 S. Fifth is sworn in. I am here to offer my support for staffs recommendation to eliminate this requirement. One of our projects was spot lighted in the presentation and we had to fight through the requirement to get this building built. I think Commissioner Reynolds asked great questions. There is a very arbitrary nature to the stepback requirement as it is written right now. It is really doesn’t accomplish much in terms of the normal stated goals for these kinds of stepbacks within a more urban environment. As such, it troubles me that there is that kind of limitation that is in place that is an arbitrary aesthetic that is imposed upon the totality of the built environment. The observation that Chairman Dudley made about this uniformity of that design is a real concern and I think this is one of those things that can happen when there is this kind of prescriptive design requirement within a Zoning Ordinance.

Speaking to some of the more technical aspects of the issue. As the buildings get taller and as you do transition to a steel or a concrete structure that is still actually very relevant that the five- foot stepback because the very heavy structural loads really need to be supported in line with the where the stepback is. Now you have a very heavy column line that is five feet stepped back from the façade of the building at the street level. This becomes a very awkward element to incorporate into any sort of retail or restaurant use. It is really not limited to the shorter buildings where this occurs. It really does occur in any type of building construction that we have along Green street or within this district. With some of the new flexibility that is built into building codes we can have wood frame buildings that are approaching the 85-foot height because of the platform construction we have now. There are a number of different problems that exist here. But, at the end of the day what I would really encourage Plan Commission to do is let architects do their job and let us put our effort and our expertise and our passion into the aesthetic of the building and not be constrained with an artificial limitation on what the aesthetic should be. There are lots of different ways that you can create articulation in the building. It doesn’t have to be just a horizontal stepback it can be vertical articulation, materials, and different textures. Things of this nature can really make a difference in the visual appearance of the building and the variety it presents. When we have something of this nature that really doesn’t accomplish much it handcuffs us in our ability to do our job.

Commission discusses the economic benefit of not having this regulation with Mr. Kunkel as well as wood framing, commercial space issues, and plumbing.

Andrew Fell, 515 N. Hickory is sworn in. I don’t have a lot to add to what Scott said because I agree with everything he said. I am favor of eliminating the requirement all together. It imposes some aesthetic limitations on what we do. We are almost dictated to have our building articulated in a horizontal manner instead of what might be more appropriate to do in a vertical manner. It absolutely does add costs to the building. It creates lots of situations as an architect that I don’t want to do. One of the projects that was shown was one of ours and I can tell you the owner absolutely did not want to have a five-foot section of roof right over his restaurant. This creates many more problems. I support the elimination. This requirement can only be an aesthetic one. If the idea was to get more light and air in there we could just set our building five foot back and go straight up. That does the same thing. Why do we have to step it back? To me is a totally arbitrary aesthetic imposition on us as designers.

Dean Newins, 10350 Bren Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota. We are here today to talk about this stepback issue. You have the amended text and the original text. We would suggest that this provision be eliminated. For the reasons that have been stated already. This has to deal with Form Based Codes, Codes that form the shape of a building. I did have the benefit of looking at and viewing the testimony and discussion from two weeks ago. Commissioner Wakefield I agree with virtually everything you said. If you know what you are doing, and you know how to plan property you can solve most of these issues. I do debate a little on the cost side. Moving past that you get into the aesthetic. It is about the aesthetic and the pedestrian experience for our residences. What does it feel like when they walk by. Is it a pleasurable experience? A five- foot stepback is not going to impact the streetscape in any great way from a solar gain or shadowing standpoint it is virtually the same. If we look at this because of the height of the buildings. Examples are shown to demonstrate the shadowing and massing affect and buildings built without stepbacks are shown and how they are examples of good architecture.

I would like you to consider the fact that this what this is really doing is limiting the ability to be creative and other ways to break a building up. It is about scale. If this wedding cake idea comes along that is changing the scale of the building. I have the great benefit of being able to do a number of high rise buildings around the country. A photo of a building in St. Louis is shown and due to code restrictions, they had to work with the City of St Louis to get 13 architectural variations to get this project built. Think about the aesthetics, about what is happening here. When we start to dictate the massing and the architectural form. The architectural community is working hard to drive and challenge their development partners to do good work. There is a design voice out there and we really believe that we can impact these projects in a positive way without this requirement.

Dudley: Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this issue? Seeing none I will close the comments.

Commission discusses the issue and shares their opinions.

Cole: Motion to close public hearing. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Cole: I recommend that we forward case PL17-0045 to the City Council with our recommendation of approval of alternative one which is the elimination of the stepback requirement as recommended by staff. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Marino: This will go to the November 21, 2017 City Council meeting.

PL17-0046 Rezoning from CO, Commercial Office to MF1, Low Density Multifamily Residential Low Density (2601 W. Bradley)

VanBuskirk: This case is for 2601 W. Bradley which is occupied by a vacant non-conforming single-family home. The home is zoned Commercial Office, CO. The property is mainly surrounded by MF1, MF2 and MF3. The zoning for this property was set in the 1996 rezoning that occurred it was likely to facilitate the Radio Group’s property.

The applicant is Alpha Omega Church and they would like to rezone the property MF1 from the current CO zoning. This will allow them to renovate the property and use it a residence. Currently, because the home is a nonconforming use in the CO district and has been vacant for longer than six months it loses its continued use allowance under the rules. So, it either has to be torn down and redeveloped as an allowed us within the CO district or there has to be some sort of rezoning to continue to use it as a residence. Rather than just rezoning this to SF1 or SF2 staff felt strongly that it would be better to rezone to MF1 because it is bordered on one side by the MF1 district and there is a large amount of MF1 already in the Parkland Ridge Neighborhood. But, its proximity to Bradley Avenue as an arterial makes it highly unlikely that in the future vision of this that it will be redeveloped as a single-family home. It will probably be wrapped into a larger package and developed as multifamily because of that proximity to the arterial road.

The Commission’s role in reviewing this is based on three criteria. The criteria for approval are explained. Eric explains how this change is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.

An aerial view of the surrounding neighborhood is shown and he explains the developments that currently exist. The LaSalle Criteria are reviewed.

Eric explains that he misconstrued the Illini Radio groups comments when saying that they supported this rezoning. No other comments have been received.

Staff recommends this be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval.

Commission Dudley ask to clarity where the property is located and who owns an adjacent property. Commission also discusses how this property ended up getting zoned Commercial Office and what the adjacent properties are zoned.

Dudley: Any other questions? Would anyone in the audience like to speak?

Karen Cochran, 2603 W. Bradley is sworn in. I work at the Illini Radio group which is owned by Saga Communications. We would like to keep this property zoned commercial. A few of the points that I have are in the rezoning map amendment application. Specifically, under letter B.

We feel that the rezoning of the property actually does hurt the property value of the land that is owned by Saga Communications which is behind the property and to the west. In the past five years crime to our property has increased quite a bit. We have had anything from a car being stolen from our back parking lot, vandalism to the property, and theft from cars in the parking lot. When the Policy were called I was told that the Police make a weekly visit to the property you were discussing with the island in the middle. We had to call animal control on the property to the west of us. In October 2016, we erected an 8-foot security fence at a cost of $40,000 around our back parking lot to protect our employees and our property. We have people coming into the building early in the morning and late at night. We feel that bringing in a commercial business would enhance the area. The lot that is directly to our east is a commercial lot that is for sale. We are commercial, and we feel like the lot in question should remain commercial as well. Parkland College is right across the street and it has 1000’s of people who could utilize some type of business in this area. Additionally, under letter F of the Rezoning application I did want to state that the house has been vacant for more than 20 years. I have worked here for just over 28 years. Our building has been a commercial building for many years before Saga Purchased it in 1987. In the last few years I have called Susan Jones who is the property maintenance inspector. I have called her at least three to five time a year for many different reasons. I have been told that the house has termites and is not hooked up to City sewer. We have our concerns about this. That is one of the reasons that we choice to erect the security fence. We believe that if a business is developed on that property that it would greatly enhance the area. There is a Dollar General Store that was recently built at the corner of Duncan and Bradley and that has been very successful. The businesses at the corner of Bradley and Mattis have seen success. Residents, students of Parkland College and our employees would all benefit from keeping the property next to ours commercial. That is what we would like to do, and I would appreciate you considering that.

Dudley: Any questions? Wakefield: How is leaving it commercial going to create less of an issue from the things you are describing such as crime? If it becomes residential how is it increasing the crime issue? Cochran: I don’t have any proof of whether anything can be solved one way or the other. But I do believe that bringing in a commercial business instead of adding more people into a very small space there is a better chance of it. Wakefield: I don’t disagree with you. I think that how you want to develop the property and what makes sense from a development should really be what is being considered. No matter where you go in town you are going to have issues that you described.

Michelle Carr, 2304 Blackhawk Point is sworn in. I represent the church who has owned the property since 1987. The property has been vacant for 10 – 12 years. They are attempting to renovate the property completely. The reason I am here today is because we can’t get a loan to do any renovations unless the property is rezoned to residential. Once that happens we are ready start on the renovations. So that we can get tenants in the property. It needs some work but what has been done so far has all been out of pocket. Now to connect the sewer and to change some of the larger items we need the financing. We would use it as a rental property or to help a church member.

Kroencke: If you don’t get the funding will this be statues quo? Carr: No, we were promised the funding if the rezoning goes through. We will continue to fix it but using it as a residence is not allowed.

Edward McGee 160 Waterford Place is sworn. Explains his background. I have been a prominent member in the community. We have always wanted to have something to give something back to the community. We would like to have a property to help someone in the church who needed help. When I lived here there was no crime issues. We would like to continue to do things to the property that would continue to enhance it.

Trautman: You indicated that this home will be available for rent to the community in the area of which there is a need that accommodate a large family. Is your intent to building a single family property. McGee: No, not a single for one family. It is planned to be a multi-family residence. Dudley: Can you expand on the answer? You are talking about having more than one individual family living in the house? McGee: Yes, a family, if they have more than one person in the family. We want to make sure it houses more than one or two. This is what we are basing our thoughts and desires on that we could have more than just a single family. Dudley: Let me be clear that you are talking about one family with multiple members of that family. McGee: Not necessarily, we want to make sure since it is right across the street from Parkland and there is an opportunity that it could be used for students that would be housed there. We want to have it, so it is open for public use in the sense that students or someone with a need for housing can use it.

Carr: He is referring to a roommate situation in a sense. The home is a single-family home for the time being we are going to leave it and renovate it as a single-family home. In the future we may make it a triplex or a duplex. For the time being we are keeping it as a single-family home.

Trautman: Can you confirm that this property can be used as a single-family dwelling? VanBuskirk: Eric confirms this and explains that only four unrelated individuals can live in the home. I have clarified with Ms. Carr prior to the meeting that this is not to be a group home or an emergency housing situation.

Dudley: If it was going to be students it could only have four unrelated individuals? VanBuskirk: Yes.

Carlson: If it were four unrelated students they would sign a lease and stay there for a year. This isn’t a I don’t have any place to live for the next three months type of situation? Carr: No, it will be all lease signings. With our church being a non-profit if there is a family within the church that is in need of house would then also sign a lease with them. It will not be an emergency housing situation.

Reynolds: So the properties non-conforming status has lapsed? VanBuskirk: Eric explains what this means. Reynolds: Technically are the renovations that they are doing permitted by the zoning ordinance? VanBuskirk: We would expect basic property maintenance. We are expecting that the property be maintained but it can’t be used. The home is not occupiable. It needs lots of code requirements done before occupancy.

Trautman: Is there a time frame requirement for how long they would have to bring the property up to code? VanBuskirk: There has been a law suit filed by the City due to property maintenance issues. This doesn’t have anything to do with the rezoning.

Phillips: Explains the issues that would be involved in turning this building into a commercial use. He also explains that the properties were developed in the County and under County rules. This is not the location that we would choose for commercial since it is midblock.

Commissioner Wakefield asks about the long-range plan for the area. VanBuskirk: Explains the rezoning is only for 2601 and what the Comprehensive Plan designates for this area.

Phillips: We have not done a study, we are responding to the request of the property owner and the applicant. We haven’t done any research for a long-term rezoning of this area. This came as part of an annexation years ago.

Elmore: For the purposes of considering this rezoning request the lawsuit with the City is completely irrelevant.

Dudley: Any other questions?

Cole: Motion to close public hearing. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Cole: We are constrained to consider only the LaSalle Criteria when we make a decision in a case like this. Mr. Cole reviews each of the LaSalle Criteria and states that he does not find a way to deny the request.

Dudley: Any other discussion?

Cole: I move that we forward case PL 17-0046 to the City Council with our recommendation for approval and incorporating within the motion our finding that the witness and staff presentations have demonstrated compliance with satisfaction of the LaSalle Criteria. Bryan: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Marino: This will go to the November 21, 2017 City Council meeting.

Update on Elimination of Residential Parking Requirement in the University District, Midtown and Downtown

LeRoy: Gives the background on the elimination of the residential parking requirements within the University District. He also gives a background of the elimination of residential parking in the CB1, CB2, and CB3 Districts. Presently there is no residential parking required in Downtown or Campustown. Ben reviews staff projections that were made when the requirement was eliminated.

How did we do: Since then we seen developers building less parking. He reviewed 15 new multifamily buildings that were built under the new requirements. Those buildings total 2287 bedrooms. Under the old requirements which was a half space per bedroom those developments would have provided approximately 1,100 parking spaces. What we have seen provided in these new buildings is 562 residential parking spaces. That is a quarter of a space per bedroom. We are getting developers providing half of what we used to require. We have had one building come in with zero parking but that was a building that could not have been built if parking was required.

Staff feel that building designs have improved and are coming down to ground level by choice. Of all buildings with alley access, almost none of them have any parking infrastructure visible from the front.

Buildings that have been built since the requirement are shown and he explains how the designs have changed. It is too early to determine impacts on housing affordability. At a minimum, developers have been able to lower their construction costs. It is expensive to provide parking in Campustown.

We have not detected any adverse impacts on automobile congestion to this point. Spillover parking to the extent that it does exist has been easily accommodated where it exists. The University District parking permits have a lower occupancy rate. There is not a huge need for more parking.

Commission discusses decrease in City parking, the projections that were make at the time of eliminating the parking of how much the surplus was, students bringing less cars, costs of parking in the different parking markets, and that parking spaces are rented separately from apartments.

Marino: Bruce will be out for the next couple of week after knee surgery and Lacey Rain Lowe welcomed a baby boy, Everett earlier this week.

Dudley: Welcomes new Commissioner PJ Trautman.

VanBuskirk: There will likely be a landmark nomination at the next meeting. This will be a very large packet so if you would like to have a hard copy please let Lisa know. I will be available to answer any questions.

Adjourned at 5:51

http://documents.ci.champaign.il.us/v/1D6GFHJp_ufomoFKlJrURRP_BrbVdJfw5