Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met December 6.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

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

Roll Call: Members Present: Cole, Elmore, Carlson, Trautman, Reynolds, Wakefield

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

Staff is sworn

Cole: I would like to request that PL 17-0051 be moved to the first position. Trautman: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Quasi Judicial Public Hearing script is read, and translation services are offered.

PL17-0051 Special Use Permit to Operate a Retail Use Selling Food, Drug and General Merchandise in the MHP, Manufactured Housing Park Zoning District (1600 North Market Street)

LeRoy: The case before you today is a Special Use Permit for 1600 North Market Street. The Special Use Permit Process is explained.

The case before us is an application for the existing Suds City location that is within the Shadowwood Mobile Home Park. The surrounding land uses are described. Photo’s of the site and parking lot are shown.

The business that is currently in operation is a laundry mat that has been declining in the past few years. This is due to increased availability of on-site laundry for rental and owner-occupied dwellings and the Bristol Park neighborhood relocation. The Bristol Park redevelopment has not yet occurred.

The proposal is to convert a portion of the laundromat to a convenience store that will sell food, drugs and general merchandise items. He explains that the original application asked for packaged liquor. After the neighborhood meeting the applicant has removed the request for liquor.

Ben gives details of the neighborhood meeting and the public input that came out of this meeting. This meeting was also had a Spanish translator to help involve the neighborhood.

He indicates that package liquor was the greatest concern of the neighborhood. This led to the applicant removing the request for liquor. There were also concerns about traffic, loading and the fact that the kids from the mobile home park use this area as an area for waiting for school buses. There were also concerns about late night customers.

During the meeting both the applicant and the land owner stressed that they wanted to structure the proposal to be beneficial to the neighborhood.

Staff reviewed the application after the public meeting and is proposing approval of the application with several provisions. Ben reviews the proposed Conditions of Approval.

The Findings of Fact that must be met for the Commission to approve this case are presented. Ben explains how the conditions proposed were developed to mitigate any issues. Staff is recommending approval.

Elmore: Questions for staff? Trautman: Is this a public laundromat or private just for the residents of the mobile home park? LeRoy: It started as a private laundromat but has been opened to the general public. Trautman: Was this building adapted to becoming ADA compliant? LeRoy: I know that transition point did not trigger a building permit activity so there were no compliance issues triggered then. I can’t speak as to whether it is fully ADA compliant at present.

Cole: I have a suggestion about the hours of operation. The hours of operation of the facility were limited to the nighttime according to the language. We should clarify the hours.

Reynolds: The materials say to sell food, drugs and general merchandise. Is that a limitation that has a definition? Or, is it a general explanation of what the intent is? LeRoy: Currently our Zoning Ordinance lists several different types of retail uses as land uses. Retail, packaged liquor is separated out from that. There are two other land uses: retail, food and drug and retail, general merchandise. The way this is drafted is trying to target those two land uses. Reynolds: Does that incorporate that definition? Explains a case she remembers that included adult materials. Phillips: If you would like to include language in the condition to not include any adult materials you could. The term general merchandise generally means anything other that food and drugs.

Elmore: The conditions were compiled after the neighborhood meeting was there any communication with the neighborhood after the meeting about the conditions? LeRoy: Indicates that there was not direct communication.

Knight: Reads a definition of general merchandise.

Wakefield: What type of uses would be permitted in the building without a special use permit? LeRoy: Explains what would be allowed in the Manufactured Housing Park District (MHP) and how limited the uses are.

Wakefield: We have noted delivery times that are not allowed. How will this be enforced. LeRoy: This will handled on a complaint basis. Knight: We can enforce based on the testimony of the person making the compliant.

Reynolds: You mentioned a concern about kids playing the area. How does staff feel about this? LeRoy: The condition of no deliveries during certain hours was developed to address this concern.

Trautman: Is it the staff’s intention to allow deliveries for between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or just between the hours of listed? LeRoy: As written a midnight deliver would be allowed. The Commission can add an additional time period. Knight: It might be good to ask the owner when he expects to take deliveries to determine if additional language is needed.

Elmore: If there are no further comments or questions the applicant may now make a presentation.

Somabhai Panchal, 1600 N. Market Street is sworn in.

Panchal: Explains the changes in the business in the past five years. He indicated that he approached the property owner about making changes to the business. He also explains that there was an accident that did major damage to the business and he lost a lot of business in the 75 days it took to fix the building.

Reynolds: What do you propose to sell? Hiren Panchal, 708 Brittany Drive is sworn in. There will no adult materials being sold. My dad is pretty traditional. The items we are going to sell will be everyday goods. Minor items for cleaning and packaged food. Reynolds: Will this be like a 7-11? Panchal: No. Just everyday goods needed by the residents in the area. Trautman: What hours would you be accepting deliveries? Panchal: Whatever time we are allowed by the City. We would try to minimize the deliveries to no interfere with the residents.

Panchal: Explains that the business is going down and that is why he is looking to expand his business.

Elmore: We will now go to the public input portion of the meeting.

Chairman Elmore explains the procedure for speaking to the Commission.

Fiona Tapia, 9 Sandalwood Drive is sworn in. My concern is as a parent about the packaged liquor sales and I am not sure about tobacco sales. This is a small area and our kids are in this area to catch the bus. She expresses concerns about the traffic and competition the applicant will have with the Family Dollar.

LeRoy: Responds to the question about liquor. He explains that the applicant has removed the liquor component and the Commission can apply a condition to not allow tobacco at the location. Ben indicated that staff is not proposing a condition on tobacco, but this is something the Commission can add to the special use permit.

Patricia Avery, 1403 Briarwood. I was at the neighborhood meeting There were many residents at the meeting to express their concerns. There were no proponents to this business coming into the neighborhood. The neighbors were all concerned about liquor and I think they would have been more open to the idea if they knew that there was no liquor to be allowed.

The neighborhood is very concerned about the traffic. They don’t want the liquor or the tobacco in the neighborhood. This will increase the traffic. Ms. Avery talks about the vision the community has for the redevelopment of the Bristol Park area and the concern for the increased traffic and safety. The Champaign Park District and Human Kinetics are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a community center.

Sejal Panchal, 3509 Cambridge Court is sworn in. As I hear all these nice tenants around the area. I understand their concerns. I would like to give some background about the business. We would like to add a few items to the business. She explains that the parking lots are located between the Shadowwood leasing office and the laundromat. The parking lot is strictly for the customers and the tenants who come to the leasing office. I would not want kids to get hurt but I have ran the laundromat for a year and a half and most of the time the kids who are present are playing and the owner has mentioned that the kids are not supposed to be playing here. She explains that the children should not be in the parking lot. There have been warning issued to parents for children who have been hurt in the area because they are not supposed to be in the area. There will be no liquor allowed. This will not be like a big convenience store. This will be to sell packaged foods, like chips and soda’s.

Elmore: Comments and questions from the Commission?

Carlson: My concern is that you are not able to clearly tell us what you are going to be selling. One of the biggest concerns is with the viability of the business. If the building isn’t occupied it will become in disrepair.

Cole: I believe that comment was directed to the applicant and not staff. The applicant is not in a position to respond. I will say that it seems to me the applicant is making an attempt to be sure that it will be a viable business. The fact is nothing we do can guarantee that. I don’t think this should be a determent to the applicant’s position. Carlson: I understand I am just mentioning that it is a concern. I would like to see it succeed. I understand that a survey was done. I would encourage careful selection of what is sold and listen to the neighborhood.

Knight: I would like to make a comment. I appreciate the discussion about what should or shouldn’t be sold. But, I think it is important that the Commission focus their discussion on do you think this proposal meets the Findings of Fact, does it meet the Findings of Fact with the proposed conditions or with the proposed conditions plus additional conditions or doesn’t it meet the Findings of Fact at all and then you can shape that into a decision.

Cole: I would add something consistent with what Bruce has said. I would suggest that we add alcohol, tobacco and adult materials as not being allowed as a condition. Knight: Commissioner Trautman also asked about loading time not being outside the permitted hours of operation of the business. That may also be a condition you want to add.

Trautman: Suggests that deliveries also not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Reynolds: Is a special use permit tied to the individual or the property? LeRoy: It is tied to the property If the business would suspend operations for more than 6 months the special use permit would lapse and anyone seeking to reopen the business would have to reapply.

Trautman: The applicant is the property owner or the tenant? LeRoy: The applicant is a tenants of the owner of the mobile home park. Trautman: The property owner is aware of the application? LeRoy: Yes, he was at the neighborhood meeting and I have had additional communication with him.

Elmore: I am reluctant to add additional conditions. I don’t think it would change my vote from a yes to a no if these conditions were added. I would like us to be sensitive to starting to dictate what he can and cannot sell in the store with the exception of liquor which was an easy call.

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

Cole: I move that we adopt as satisfying the ordinance requirements concerning Findings of Fact. Those facts that were presented today by testimony of witnesses and recommended by staff as having satisfied the ordinance and forward case PL 17-0051 to City Council with our recommendation for approval and including in that recommendation certain conditions which have been outlines here. Including no liquor sales permitted, no tobacco sales permitted, no adult products permitted, and the hours of deliver to the business operation would not include the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a, m. With those conditions we would forward the case the Council with our recommendation of approval also including the conditions recommended by staff. Trautman: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Commissioner Cole leave the meeting due to a conflict with the following case.

PL 17-0036 Birkett-Frasca Annexation Agreement with an Overall Development Plan and PL 17-0037 Birkett-Frasca Preliminary Plat

Marino: This project is in the southwest quadrant of the Curtis Road Interchange. One quadrant has already started development which is the Carle Tract. There are two quadrants that remain undeveloped and this is the fourth quadrant in the southeast portion.

Jeff explains when the Curtis Road Interchange Overlay district was approved. An aerial photo is shown and Jeff explains that the Friendship Lutheran church is not included in this development.

The proposed location of the development is explained. A bird’s eye view and additional photos are shown. The Curtis Road Area is explained. Jeff explains that the property is not contiguous at this time. The developer is preparing to have all approvals done prior to the property becoming contiguous. When contiguity happens, they will be ready to start development approvals.

The stages of the overall development plan review area are explained. The Future Land Use Map is shown, and Jeff explains the plans comply with the Future Land Use Map. The master plan designates access points. The access to the commercial and residential areas is explained. The stormwater plan that is required has been submitted and Jeff explains the requirements. The pedestrian plan is also shown and explained.

The placement of the trail is described.

One other thing that was incorporated in the annexation agreement is that the General Commercial Zoning District would allow a package liquor license. The applicant has requested that if any changes take place in how package liquor licenses are issued the area would be allowed to apply for a license under the old rules that were in effect at the time this annexation agreement was approved.

The overall development plan does have very specific criteria for approval that are outlined in the ordinance. These criteria are reviewed.

We are recommending both cases be forwarded to City Council with your recommendation for approval.

Elmore: The signalized intersection. There are requirements about how close they can be together and it looks like they are sitting right on the limit. Does that mean technically it was not conforming to the regulations but it was sitting right on the boundary. Can you explain this? Marino: It is anticipated that there will be one signalized intersection at the location of street A and Curtis but there is also Duncan Road. As you mentioned the City has a quarter mile spacing requirement for access points on arterial street so normally we wouldn’t allow this location for an access point onto Curtis Road but because it is the only logical location between those two points the Curtis Road Master Plan called for it at this location. The signalized intersection will require a traffic impact analysis as part of this. We anticipate that there will be a signalized intersection at Street A and Curtis Road. The City policy is that the City would pay for fifty percent of the signalized intersection and then the developer would pick up the other fifty percent. That is to accommodate existing traffic that would normally be here and the additional traffic produced by the development.

Elmore: If we recommend this annexation agreement there is an overall development plan that goes along with it and a preliminary plat which one of these that we are looking at is the preliminary plat. Marino: Explains the drawing that were included in the Commissioners packets.

Trautman: As this is proposed, as people are heading west bound on Curtis, is there any access to Street A? Vandeventer: There will be a full access intersection and a break will be added to the median. Knight: Explains that as part of the Curtis Road Interchange.

Elmore: Would anyone from the audience wish to speak?

Tim Harrington, 1501 Waterford Place is sworn in. Our firm represents the Frasca Family. We are happy to answer any questions. The developer and the engineer are here for questions also.

Carlson: Motion to close public hearing. Reynolds: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Knight: I would suggest that you have a motion for the Annexation and Overall Development Plan and do the Preliminary Plat separately.

Trautman: In regards to case PL17-0036 Birkett Frasca Annexation Agreement with an Overall Development Plan I move that this moves forward to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Carlson: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Trautman: In regard to case PL 17-0037 Birkett Frasca Preliminary Plat I move that this be forwarded to City Council with our recommendation for approval. Carlson: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Knight: Both cases will go to December 19, 2017 City Council.

Adjourned at 5:25

http://documents.ci.champaign.il.us/v/1sMyXbUrOR16TBZG-mgO0ZkcPqkMYsKJJ