Chambana Sun

Village of Mahomet Board of Trustees met April 16

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL: Mohr called the roll, Trustees Colravy, Tompkins, Harpst, Oliger and Metzger are all present. Additionally, Sean Widener, Village President, Patrick Brown, Village Administrator, Joe Chamley, Village Attorney, Abby Heckman, Village Planner, Mike Metzler, Chief of Police, Rebecca Goodwin, Deputy Chief of Police, and Dawn Mohr Village Clerk are all present. Trustee Preston is absent.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT: NO PUBLIC COMMENT PRESENTED.

5. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS:

A. FINANCE:

1. Bill List: Brown went over the bill list in brief stating there wasn’t anything outside the usual. He also stated that with the fiscal year end coming up, that there will be several larger bills next week as there are engineering invoices coming in. Widener asked if there are any questions or comments, none are presented. Widener called for a motion to move the item to the consent agenda, Harpst moved and Metzger seconded. Mohr called the roll, ALL VOTES YES 5-0. The Bill List is moved to the consent agenda.

B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:

1. A Resolution Concerning a Conditional Use Permit to Establish Mixed Use Commercial with Flexible Office Space/Warehousing in Completely Enclosed Structures on 9.4 +/1 Acres of Land Zoned C-2 General Commercial Located on the South Side of S. Lake of the Woods Road Approximately 700 FT East of Sugar Lane, Commonly Known as 214 S. Lake of the Woods Road. Heckman goes over the project as presented in the memo. She states that there is a current business on the site, BANKO, that BANKO would stay on its own lot.

Currently zoned C-2, the property has been rezoned since 2000, there were 2 conditional use permits already in place for the property. She stgates the the conditional uses on this property have since expired. She also states the pond on the property has been filled. She states that the new construction plans will insure it was done correctly. The public hearing did have some residents express concerns about the screening. A member from the forest preserve was also present and voiced concerns about the drainage that flows onto the preserves property Heckman states that the development is to take care of the drainage issues. Site plan that was originally posted has been revised to include existing trees that residents would like to remain. There are 10 conditions to the use. The Brush Man Subdivision is also discussed with this item. Heckman states that the subdivision plan could still move forward if the conditional uses are not granted. That it would limit the owner to C-2 permissions. Shja also states that there are 2 waivers first one is the improvements to Lake of the Woods Road, they are in contact with Jeff Blue with the County, the 2nd is adding sidewalks. There are no sidewalks to connect to, only the bike path on the other side of Lake of the Woods Road. She states that without the waivers they would have to review site plans. Tompkins questions whether there will be any roadways behind the building’s, Heckman replies that it correct. They felt as though no business movement on the back side to help protect the resident from the noise. Tompkins asks what the lighting will be on the property.

Heckman states that the Village does not require parking lot lighting and that it is not on the site plan. She states that on the building the lighting would have to be fully shielded and cannot project the light outward. She adds that there is no condition about the parking lot lighting as presented. She states that the board would have to direct as to their wishes. Oliger asks of the lighting on the back of the building would be present. Heckman states she did not know, however there would be emergency exits so there could be lighting by those exits be reiterated that the lighting would be fully shielded and could not project lights onto neighboring properties. 

Widener asks if there are any other questions, Metzger speaks up about his concerns. The distance of the retaining wall from the property line. He states that the retaining wall at 5 to 6 feet off the line would kill every tree. Heckman states that there was confusion on the tree, that she didn’t fully understand what trees would be taken down as opposed to some staying on the property. Metzger states that they do in fact want the “Charlie brown” looking trees taken down but not the nice-looking trees. Bryan Bradshaw with BTK Engineering speaks up, as he ius in attendance via zoom. He states that the current plan shows the wall 5 feet off the property line, he says that there was some confusion on what everyone wanted along the line. He states after further review of the grading, the wall can be moved another 5 feet from the line. He states building C & D will stay the same at 25 feet from the property line. There would be 15 feet from the wall to give proper drainage and for emergency vehicles to have access. Metzger states that he isn’t sure if 10 feet is enough. Heckman says she did look up on google, she said the general rule for a tree is to measure the diameter of the tree and multiply it by 5. Measure out from the trunk of the tree and that’s where you mark. Heckman states that there is a very significant size tree on the corner. Brown asked Bryan to clarify the total amount of feet the wall will be from the property line. Widener asks Metzger if the trees he is concerned about are on his property or the Brush Man property. Metzger answers that some are on the line and some off the line both ways. Widener clarifies that Metzger concern stems from the wall killing off the trees. Metzger answers, correct, that these trees provide shade to most of his back yard and house. Tompkins asks if the most recent plan takes into consideration the additional 5 feet. Jill Guth answers that it does not. That they have been working on this all day and are trying to save the project. Oliger asks for clarification on the space again. Heckman answers that the building is set back 25 feet from the property line. Guth adds that it shall remain at 25 feet. 

Heckman Guth also states that there has to be room for emergency vehicles and to properly drain the property. Heckman states that the height of the wall is 3 feet, Guth adds that there are places that it will be higher. Metzger asks why the buildings cannot be moved further to the West and the other buildings made smaller. Guth answers that it is more than just moving the buildings, it’s an entire redevelopment plan, that they have been making changes as requested, i.e adding trees, moving the wall. She states that the goal line is changing at every turn. Metzger disagrees stating he hasn’t changed anything and asks her what he has changed. Guth speaks and Metzger speaks up and says he wasn’t aware of the retaining wall until yesterday when he went and spoke to the Village Planner, Heckman. Harpst speaks up and asks for clarification, that as it stands the buildings are 25 feet from the property line and that the wall is 10 feet, Heckman states that the current plan shows 5 feet for the retaining wall.

Tompkins asked beyond the wall area is the building at grade level, Guth responds that Bryan will have to answer that as he is the engineer. He states that the elevation of the wall is about 7.55 and that the building is at 750. The transmission is from the line. Guth reminds them that there will be rear egression from the building for emergency exits. Widener tells Brown that on page 46 of the packet it has details about the wall. Widener said the question for the engineer, what their opinion is on moving the wall 5 feet to maintain the tree line. Bryan states that they would have to do some research, that he doesn’t disagree with Heckman’s statement. Widener asks Metzger if that would satisfy his concerns. Metzger responds that he would have to go out and look at it again. That at 5-6 feet is a problem. He states he doesn’t know if a tree can thrive with the additional 5 feet. Said he is not an expert. Widener asks if it is the existing trees that is his main concern. Metzger states that the existing trees are a concern, however he doesn’t want to look out his window and see a building so the overall vegetation is important. He states he doesn’t know if there is enough space to plant a tree in the 10 feet and it survive. Heckman states that she did look up the specs for the trees that are being proposed.

They are typically 3-5 feet wide at maturity. Colravy asks if the new planting would be in the shade of existing trees. The answer is some of them would be yes. Colravy states that this breed does need sun. Oliger asks if they were to plant trees, is there enough room for the trees to prosper, Heckman states that the size of the proposed trees would fit. Colravy asks if the trees is going up will be on top of the wall, Heckman states there won’t be any if the wall is moved.  Brown states that there will have to be some flexibility in what is planted. Metzger states that he doesn’t have a problem with existing trees remaining as discussed but he has to have some foliage to screen the building. He is concerned as to what is going to survive in the small space being proposed. Guth speaks up and said they can look at tall grasses, i.e elephant grass, she states it grows quite tall and is hard to kill. Metzger states he is not comfortable voting yes or no based on what if’s, that they have been down that road before. Heckman states she understands that, and that there’s lots of options in landscaping. Widener states we can all keep go around in circles, but we need more definitive. Dave Monohan speaks up via zoom, he answers that he would like the project to move forward with the Village staff responsible for approving the landscaping screen. He asks the board to trust his word that he will not say one thing and do another. Widener speaks up and says the board is a little sensitive as to past experiences. He summarizes, moving the wall another 5 feet is probably a good idea, keeping some of the current trees on the property, getting a landscaping plan in place, speak with an arborist about the impact of existing trees, he states that with a 30 foot building and the current tree line, there isn’t going to be a lot of sunshine anyway. Choosing a particular specie, Metzger states that he is fine with the village staff approving the landscaping, he just doesn’t want them to come back and say that this is the condition were in and the plan changes after the fact. Widener states that there is no guarantee that cutting on one side of a tree isn’t going to cause it stress and it die. Guth asks if they are asking them to start all over again, she doesn’t want to delay again. Widener states they have a week before the next meeting. Guth states that it would be hard to engage a landscape professional and get a design in a week. Tompkins states it is not impossible though. Widener adds that they can bring it forward to the board. Heckman suggests that there could be a condition that the landscape plan is brought forward and accepted. Widener asks if there can be a contractor warranty, Guth responds she doesn’t know how that works. Monohan asks if it is 1 or 2 weeks, Widener answers 1 week. Monohan states that they will do everything they can to get the plan to them, if not they can take the vote. Widener asks if there are any other questions or comments, Metzger speaks up and asks about whether there is a fence in the plan as he doesn’t see it in the call out. Heckman answers that there is and points it out on the screen. He also asks about the parking spaces not facing the residence, Brown answers that it was not changed because the fencing was added. Widener asked if it had been addressed to add a fence to the top of the wall to do away with the tree and landscape issue, Metzger replied that they would rather have the landscaping as to not look at a fence and building from their property. Widener recommends taking this to the regular agenda and not consent. NO

ACTION TAKEN-ITEM MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA

2. A Resolution Concerning the Construction Plans for the Brush Man Subdivision 

Village of Mahomet. NO ACTION TAKEN – ITEM MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

3. An Ordinance Concerning a Rezoning for 4.51 +/- Acres of Land from R-1A Single-Family Residential to C-3 Planned Commercial Located on the West Side of the S. Division Street (IL-47) and Fawn Drive Intersection, Commonly Known as 1405 S. Division Street. Heckman goes over the project as it is laid out in the memo. She states that Steve Andersen, the property owner, is present. She states the reason for this path was to limit the capacity that this property could be operated when the time comes that Mr. Andersen no longer operates at this site. The village was aware that Mr. Andersen had been operating for some time outside the zoning regulations. However, it has taken some time to come up with the plan since a portion of the property is within a flood zone. Mr. Andersen worked with FEMA to come up with the plan. She states that there are residents in this area and that not all uses under commercial zoning. She said one thing they “likes” about the property is that there is a single-family unit on the property and that tenants are aware of what they are going to see ahead of them signing the lease. Mr. Andersen preemptively put in trees and fencing. They have put in an access from 47, she states that they did receive a complaint from a neighbor about the dust coming up from the traffic. This new plan shows that Mr. Andersen will be putting in all concrete therefore will alleviate that concern. There will be one small area that will house equipment that will remain gravel, however it is not going to have a lot of traffic. Heckman states that Mr. Andersen is fine with the 2 uses that is being permitted. She states that there was only one person who attended the public hearing, they are the neighbors directly to the north of this property and they were very complimentary of Mr. Andersen. And again, the only complaint was from a neighbor who did not attend the meeting. Heckman states that she did reach out to that neighbor and explained the plans. She has not heard back from him. Trustee Colravy speaks up and states that the person who complained was unable to attend the hearing and meeting and that his biggest concern was the dust but there has also been some burning that is taking place, Colravy stated they weren’t aware that the burning was coming from this property but just in general wanted to voice that. Heckman answered that burning is not permitted. Colravy said that traffic wasn’t a real concern as it isn’t unexpected in this location. Colravy was very complimentary of the efforts of Mr. Andersen. Heckman states that if there is burning inside the Village they should report it as it is not permitted. Oliger asks what the current zoning of the property is, Heckman answered R-1, Oliger states that the property is currently operating outside the zoning. Heckman answers that yes it is. Oliger clarifies that this is more of a “clean up” Heckman agreed. Brown speaks up and says yes it is however staff knew and was working with Mr. Andersen for quite a while working through the process and it wasn’t because he didn’t want to comply. Oliger asked if these options would protect the future use. Heckman answers that it does. Widener asks if there are any other questions or comments none are presented. Widener calls for a motion to move the item to the consent agenda, Tompkins moved and Metzger seconded. Mohr called the roll - ALL VOTES YES 5-0. Item is moved to the consent agenda.

4. A Resolution Concerning a Final Plat for Living Word Omega Message Church Subdivision on 45.04 +/- Acres of Land Located on the East Side of Lombard Street (IL Route 47) and on the South Side of Thorenwood Drive. Heckman goes over the project as it is laid out on the memo. As he states that the annexation is directly related to this. Heckman explains how the lots will be divided. She states that this is being set up to make 2 development lots and the church having its own lot. She states that currently the property lines are not straight and that the property adjacent to this property will likely be encompassed into Thornewood at some point. Because the drainage for that property does naturally flows into the Thornewood lakes. Nothing has been discussed thus far. She also speaks about the other property adjacent to this will likely become developed as well. There is a development agreement with the developers of Thornewood for the roadway. Anyone who developes this lot will have to reimburse for the roadway portion. The trigger for the payment would be when the property is developed. She states there are several conditions. Widener asks about the trigger for sidewalks, sewer. Heckman states if sidewalks reach these lots, then they will have to put in the sidewalks. Widener goes on the record that we do need sidewalks on 47. Heckman states the Village will have to construct the sidewalks north of Briarcliff. Brown states there is no doubt once the AG1 develops there will be a bike path. Heckman states that the owners of Classic Plumbing has an agreement to put in sidewalks once they arrive. Widener asks if a trigger can be a sale. Brown answers that we have never done that, Heckman said once it is subdivide we would have that authority. Heckman also points out that on the plat provided that there is a 15 foot sidewalk so they are aware of the requirement. Widener calls for a motion to move the item to the consent agenda. Oliger moved and Colravy seconded. Moohr called the roll, ALL VOTES YES 5-0 item is moved to the consent agenda.

5. An Ordinance Annexing Certain Territory to the Village of Mahomet, Champaign County, Illinois – Living Word Omega Message Church (Living Word Omega Message Church Subdivision) The item was discussed along with the resolution for the final plat. Widener asked for any questions or comments, none are presented. Tompkins moved and Oliger seconded. Mohr called the roll ALL VOTES YES 5-0.

C. ADMINISTRATION:

1. A Resolution Approving a Redevelopment Agreement by and Between the Village of Mahomet, Illinois (The “Village”), and Tabeling Development Company, LLC, (“Developer”). Brown goes over the memo as presented. This is a larger site than 10 acres that has been undeveloped forever, next to Farm credit and the interstate. The development agreement does meet the criteria to give incentives as allowed by the state, also qualifies for TIF District and Business District . The Village will retain their regular sales tax on those properties. If something that is built that produces sales tax. The TIF incentives will reimburse 50% of the tax collected. He states that because it is several lots, it would likely expire when the TIF sunsets in 2036 and payable in 2037. Brown said they ran through different scenarios and it isn’t unreasonable to expect them to fulfill the term. There is a a cap amount of $750,000. Chamley explained that there is a benefit to having a cap amount so the agreement cannot go longer than entitled. Chamley gave an example of another community not fully understanding the formula for TIFand overpaying a developer. Chamley stated that a hard cap number is a safety net. Brown states they are limited to eligibility of TIF payments. He compares it to the Business District that are looking into creating. Widener asks Chamley to explain the terms, Chamley reads the provision that the Village has no guarantee. Tompkins asks for clarification on when it kicks in, asking if an actual business has to be in place before. No, it is once the property is fully assessed for TIF. Then he adds for the Business Tax it does have to be. The answer is yes. Oliger asks if something is built in 2034 what happens, Brown states that it is a hard expiration date. He adds final is 2036 but final payment is in 2037. He adds a hotel would be a different kind of package. Heckman asks him to explain the design standards. Brown said they are looking at this as a gateway to the Village as is the former Hen House site. Oliger states that TIF’s in general are very confusing and asks for clarification. Brown states that TIF is property taxes and Business District is different, Tompkins adds that the Village is actually getting half of the 50% TIF. Heckman reiterates Business District is different, The village will keep 100% sales tax and developer will get 100% of the Business District tax. He adds it is only 5 years. Metzger asks why is it that we have to offer this up front when we have long time businesses that didn’t get this advantage and new ones could be in direct competition. Widener answers that we have to be competitive to gain new businesses and that we missed out on one because we didn’t have the incentives. Metzger hates that they don’t know what is going into a building and worries it is a competitor to a hometown business. Widener adds that at some point the current business owners were the new business in town. Brown states that we have so much residential growth that we have to get commercial base up. He states that there is a lot of leakage into Champaign where residents spend their money in Champaign. He uses an example of if 2 fast food restaurants come to town, would McDonald’s take a hit, maybe some and Metzer interjected depending on what fast food chain it is, i.e Burger King or KFC. Brown added that more people stopping off the interstate spending money is good and brings attention to the community. Widener states that we aren’t to the point where we have targeted any particular business, but we are working in that direction. Metzger said he is 100% on board with a company specific scenario. Colravy speaks up and states with our growth we can absorb a lot of commercial. Metzger asked if we have to give incentives and Colravy replied to Metzger that we need them to hurry it along. Tompkins clarifies that in essence there are 2 different types of tax we are dealing with, the property tax and the sales tax. The Business Tax does each entity have a sunset; the answer is yes. Regardless the TIF ends in 2026 and the final is payable in 2037. Tompkins states that he believes it’s a good move. Widener gives kudos to Brown and Chamley for all their hard work and for laying the framework for incoming business. Widener said if he was to be quoted in the paper it would be Mahomet is now competitive. Widener asks if there are any questions or comments, none are presented. Brown explains that this property needs the boost Widener calls for a motion to move the item to the consent agenda. Harpst moved and Tompkins seconded. Mohr called the roll.

ALL VOTES YES 5-0. Item is moved to the consent agenda.

6. ADMINISTRATORS REPORT: Brown asks if there are any questions in regard to the monthly reports. None come forth.

A. Departmental Reports:

1. Park & Recreation

2. Police

3. Community Development

B. Preliminary FY 2025 Budget and FY 2025-2029. Brown states that they are working very hard to get the tentative budget to the board.

6. MAYOR’S REPORT: Widener continues his discussion about the 1% grocery tax repeal the governor is putting forward. He asks the members if they would like to take a “straw poll” in favor or against the Village repealing the tax. A yes vote would mean the board is for the grocery tax repeal and a no vote would mean they are not in favor of the repeal. Widener asks Mohr to call the roll. ALL VOTES NO 5-0. The Board of Trustees is not in favor of the repeal of the 1% grocery tax.

A. April 2024 Board Meeting Calendar

1. April 23, 2024, Board of Trustees Meeting 6:00 PM

2. April 29, 2024, Joint Meeting with School Board 7:00 PM

8. NEW BUSINESS: No new business brought forward.

9. ADJOURNMENT: Widener calls for a motion to adjourn the meeting Tompkins moved and Harpst seconded. Mohr called the roll ALL VOTES YES 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 7:37 PM

https://www.mahomet-il.gov/vertical/Sites/%7B8D137460-5EE3-4B54-9DF0-146867CF080D%7D/uploads/0001-_April_23_2024__Meeting_Packet_with_links.pdf