Chambana Sun

City of Champaign Plan Commission met Nov. 20

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Roll Call:

Members Present: Barkstall, Cole, Elmore, Sanchez, Wakefield, Kroencke 

Staff Present: Knight, VanBuskirk, Marino, Horwick, Trotter, Vandeventer

Approval of the minutes from the November 7, 2024 meeting. Cole: So Moved. Barkstall: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

PL24-0024 Research Park Rezoning

VanBuskirk: The applicant is the University of Illinois Research Park. They are requesting a rezoning from the CO, Commercial Office to the I1, Light Industrial Zoning District. This is a little different because the tax parcels in the Research Park are owned by the University of Illinois, so the legal description is really important. The long description in the report is essentially the block between Hazelwood and Gerty Drive west of First Street all the way to the existing city limit line that is sometimes referred to as old Fourth Street. Eric shows a map to depict the location that is proposed to be rezoned. The property is currently zoned CO as is most of the property in the Research Park with a few exceptions which are shown on a map. In considering a rezoning request the Plan Commission looks at three items. The range of permitted and provisional uses allowed in the proposed district, the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Context Criteria and the LaSalle Criteria.

The requested change from CO, Commercial Office to I1, Light Industrial is because the Research Park is looking to transition companies that are currently in startup mode as part of the Research Park entrepreneurship process from those facilities into more light manufacturing and fabrication facilities onsite in the Research Park area and within proximity to the University of Illinois. He explains that there are some significant differences between the CO and I1 uses.

The uses that are crossed out are simply going away. The most important being that light manufacturing as well as warehouse and research and testing facilities are allowed in I1. There are some high intensity uses that are allowed that probably would never locate in this area since they are not the type of uses that would be tied to the mission of the Research Park. There are also some uses that are provisional uses that are going way such as daycare. Research and testing facilities are becoming a permitted use. There are some additional provisional uses being added by the I1, Light Industrial Zoning District however things like gas stations, restaurant carry-out these uses are all required to be withing closure proximity to the interstate and this site is not. Although it is being added on paper functionally these are still not allowed in this particular location.

The other factor that the Commission looks at is the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the Research Park is designated either College or University Center. So focused on the activities of the University of Illinois or employment center. Both the CO and I1 zoning districts are appropriate in these locations. He explains that the rezoning is supported by Comprehensive Plan. There is a note in the Future Land Use Map that encourages collaboration between the City and the Research Park and the University of Illinois particularly around the planning efforts that they do. The conceptional plan from the University of Illinois Master Plan is shown.

The Development Context Criteria we have not had a rezoning where we are working within two similar zoning districts. These are both Employment Center Land uses and they are roughly the same level of intensity although they allow different uses. The only applicable criteria as uses are proposed is that they provide special consideration to things like buffering, parking lighting, noise, traffic generation. Development standards have been included to show that the zoning districts are very similar and how they develop, Examples are given. They are both treated as appropriate in the Employment Center land use.

On balance all of the LaSalle Criteria have been satisfied and support the rezoning to I1, Light Industrial Zoning.

This item was advertised in the News Gazette, letters were sent to neighboring property owners and signs were posted on the property. Materials were also posted on the Engage Champaign website. We have not received any comments in support or opposition.

Staff is recommending the Plan Commission forward case PL24-0024 to the City Council with a recommendation to approve after determining that the applicable LaSalle Criteria have been satisfied.

Any questions?

Barkstall: It says that a prohibited use is a daycare, but it is subject to Article V. Light Industrial seem to not support having kids. But it would be nice to have daycare for the people who work in the area’s kids? VanBuskirk: You are correct. The city viewed this as a temporary stop gap. There is an immediate need to address the light manufacturing requirements here. We are going to begin working with the Research Park on creating a Research Park specific zoning district where we can collaborate and identify what uses should be in the Research Park, what should not be, and have it be tailored to the specific needs of the park itself rather than trying to shoehorn a particular zoning district into a particular location.

The challenge to this is if we make changes to CO, Commercial Office it impacts the entire city.

Being cognizant that there are things that are appropriate at the Research Park but not appropriate at other locations. You are absolutely right there are some uses going away. They are allowed to locate in other parts of the Research Park.

Wakefield: Did the zoning of the property occur before the University of Illinois Master Plan? 

VanBuskirk: Yes, each of the properties were brought in under Annexation Agreements and the CO, Commercial Office zoning was applied at that time. The other caveat with all of that is that each development is required to go through a Planned Development approval process.

Commission discusses how the University’s Master Plan has changed over the years.

Elmore: If there are no other questions would the applicant like to speak?

Laura Appenzeller, Executive Director University of Illinois Research Park. The 2028 Master Plan did address multiple uses with the Research Park one of which was some light industrial.

We have some single-story building that already exist in the park and maybe on the edges of what was designed to address. We want to provide some better clarity moving forward when we go to attract new businesses that might wish this type of zoning qualification that they know it is allowable but furthermore for our companies that are seeking to move from incubator space and grow their business and still leverage the university environment and still be in proximity to the resources. We think there is a good opportunity to improve retention if we allow the use within the Research Park area. I also wanted to emphasize that we have a lot of covenants that run with the land and that does set up permitted uses so while it may be allow in light industrial there are still restrictions about technology and research and development being part of the nature of the Research Park and subject to the permitted uses. There would be scrutiny in both design review, the U of I Board of Manager review, and then coming back to this body for the approval on the Planned Development moving forward. We do not have a developer in place at this time so we would openly market this property as an opportunity to seek future development from either owner-occupied opportunities or from future developers that might wish to have this type of property for speculative space or companies that wish to move to Champaign.

Elmore: Would anyone else like to comment on this case?

Beatrice Pavia, Champaign is sworn in. I think the Research Park is a wonderful part of the University. I think it is a natural extension of what goes on at the University. But as a member of the public from what I have been able to read in the news release. It seems like the plans are a little vague. I don’t know what light manufacturing even means but we will be living with these decisions. What about pollution? This area is very close to lots of places. What is going in there? I don’t think we know. Like Mrs. Appenzeller said we are looking for clarity moving forward. I am to. I don’t think it is necessarily a bad idea I just think that once you rezone it is very difficult to unzone. I don’t know how this zoning decision impacts what Mr. VanBuskirk just mentioned as they will be looking in the future at some special Research Park zoning. Why not complete that first. If we are doing this to attract research companies to the University don’t, they need to know what is allowed? I would like to see transparency. Perhaps there are materials out there that I have not researched. The University has often done things that are not close in proximity. Recently they wanted to build an ice arena in downtown Champaign. This is not close to campus. But it was touted as a very viable idea for their students and their sports program. I am wondering why we are moving forward on this with the information we have, not that it is not a good idea, what is that idea. I would think that it is difficult to rezone once you have made that decision.

Elmore: Would anyone else care to speak? I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

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

Elmore: Any other comments?

Elmore: I will entertain a motion to approve case PL24-0024 the Research Park Rezoning understanding that it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, the Development Context Criteria, and the LaSalle Criteria to forward it to City Council with a recommendation for approval. Cole: So moved. Kroencke: Seconds Unanimous “yes”.

Knight: This case will go to City Council on December 3, 2024.

PL 24-0030 Final Plat Lot 103 of Stamey Subdivision No 2

Marino: The Plan Commission typically does not see final plat and they go straight to City Council. In this case this final plat has a waiver request that was not approved on the original preliminary plat.

This property is located at the northwest corner of Prospect Avenue and Interstate Drive. It is an empty lot. The surrounding zoning is described.

This lot is zoned CN, a site photo is shown, it was originally in an annexation agreement from 2004 and this is a small lot that did not develop. This lot has now been purchased and the owner would like to develop it. The applicant is CEFCU a regional financial credit union out of Peoria. In order to complete the development, they are required to final plat this lot. They will be required to install streetlights and street trees. The waiver comes into place because the sidewalk that was built did not leave enough room to install the street trees. City staff did not want to approve a waiver for the street trees. Since there was no room and there are also utilities in the right of way, we worked with the owners to install the trees on the private property. Because of the waiver and the conditions of approval required the transfer of responsibility for planting and care of the trees to the landowner this plat had to come to Plan

Commission for approval.

Staff is recommending forwarding this final plat with the waiver and the condition of approval to City Council with a recommendation of approval.

Any questions?

Commission discusses about what type of utilities are in the right of way that prevent the planting of the trees, and why the sidewalks were not required to be replaced with larger sidewalks.

Elmore: I agree with Dan that there are plenty of areas where there are trees in small areas and the sidewalk is damaged because of them. Is there a specification on how far away the tree’s need to be away from the sidewalk. Marino: Indicates that there is no specification on where they are planted. Knight: Bruce suggests that the Commission could add wording that says “in a location approved by the City” to the conditions regarding placement of the street trees.

Elmore: Would anyone like to speak to this item?

Laura Tobben, Farnsworth Group is sworn in. I am here representing CEFCU. Thanks, Jeff, for all his help. Explains they have a landscape plan in to the City for review and how indicates many tree’s they are proposing to plant on each frontage. She explains that they are doing sidewalks along Prospect Avenue, and they will be five feet. Any other questions?

Elmore: Any questions for the applicant?

Elmore: I will entertain a motion to forward case PL 24-0030 Final Plat of Lot 103 of Stamey Subdivision No. 2 including the waiver regarding street trees and that they will be placed with approval from the City. Cole: So moved. Kroencke: Seconds. Unanimous “yes” vote.

Knight: This case will go to City Council on December 3, 2024.

Adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WtjzjoocHfcWSc2S81Ah1LiK3oWjCzM4/view