Land Use

1 LAND USE COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION June 9, 2016 PRESENT ABSENT Beth Schlueter, Chairman Veronica Armouti, Vice Chairman William Catalano Jill Buford Larry Miller Mark Rabe John Mullane, PC Chairman Paul Pitts Ben Powell Eric Williams, Staff Scott Hanson, Staff Cheryl Porter, Staff Jeanette Mallon, Alderman Ward 4 Justin Venvertloh, TWM At the regular meeting of the Plan Commission's Land Use Committee, the following was discussed: Case 2016-13: TIMBERLAKE VILLAGE – Planned Unit Development Developer: Timberlake Development Co. Engineer: TWM Scott Hanson gave a brief background of the property. It is located on the Northwest corner of IL State Rte. 157 and Lewis Road. It is currently a PUD known as JRG or Timberlake Village. There is a US Bank facility which is the only built lot within the PUD at this point. It is approximately 4.5 acres. It is shovel ready for this development. Access along IL State Rte. 157 is a right in / right out. There is full access off of Lewis Road. Sidewalks are in place along Lewis Road and Timberlake Drive aka Weber Drive. The subject tract is within the “Commercial” district and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the JRG PUD being approved, what is now the US Bank site, had a request to have the property rezoned from R-1 to B-2. That proposal did not pass. Subsequently, the developer of this property teamed up with the developers of the proposed US Bank site to present the PUD. In effect, they were able to negotiate a compromise with the neighbors through the PUD process to have the commercial development. Up until last year, all PUDs had to have at least 4 acres to be considered as a PUD. Effectively, the US Bank site need the PUD in order to be rezoned to B-2 and the PUD site needed the US Bank Site in order to meet the minimum acreage requirement for a PUD. In this way, they needed each other to make this development happen. The original PUD would not allow for the land to be subdivided. In May of 2015, the new PUD ordinance allows for PUDs to be subdivided into lots as long as all parties agree and understand they must adhere to the PUD requirements. The drawback is that the 2006 PUD needs to go through the new PUD process in order to allow for this. Mallon asked if the bank property could have a different use in the future. Williams stated it could have a  2 different use but would still have to adhere to the PUD requirements established. The 2006 requirements were for a bank or a pharmacy only. Venvertloh added that the PUD was for one bank and one drive through facility within the entire PUD development. Mallon got confirmation that there could still be office buildings and a daycare. Williams added that this was one of the more restrictive PUDs including the hours of operation. Anything located within 300 feet of the westerly property line could only be professional offices or a daycare. The existing buffer yard (a six-foot tall berm) exceeds what is required. Venvertloh added there is a 50-foot setback requirement along that side as well. Williams also added that the buildings could only be 1-story. Schlueter wanted to confirm that everything would be in place except for the subdivision of the bank lot. She asked why then are there red lines on Exhibit B unless there are more changes. Hanson corrected the language to bring the conditions up to speed after 10 years of development. Schlueter asked if it was to conform the new PUD ordinance or if there were changes brought forward from the developer. Hanson stated it would be a combination of both. Venvertloh explained the original owners of this PUD are selling to another party. In order to meet the US Bank lease it states it has to be located on a separate parcel. In order for the sale to go through, they have to make sure they are meeting the requirements of the bank’s lease. It is to protect the buyer’s interest in this situation. He would like to keep the number of buildings between four (4) and seven (7), not what has been changed in Exhibit B. Hanson pointed out on Page 2 Section 6 (a) the deleted portion pertaining to the proposed right-in and right-out onto State Route 157. This entrance has already been developed and there is no reason for it to be mentioned. Mullane asked why on Page 2 Section 6 (c) – “No curb cut is allowed on Weber Drive” was removed. Williams stated the plans do not show an entrance off Weber Drive so that is why it was removed. The committee thought it would be a good idea to leave it for clarity since it was an important point. That was a big concern by the neighbors during the original PUD process and a promise was made at that time there would not be an entrance there. Venvertloh agreed to leave that statement in the conditions. Hanson stated he revised Section 8 to reflect what is currently out there and that it has met the plan. Originally it stated what was proposed to be done. He also took out Section 12 – PEDESTRAIN ACCESS because it was mentioned elsewhere. Mallon stated she remembered the uses mentioned would be beneficial to the neighborhood to walk to. Venvertloh stated the original PUD had the maximum restaurant size to be 1600 square feet. He asked for staff’s opinion if they would be willing to extend the size out further. Mallon stated she remembered the neighbors wanted only a small sandwich shop which would be convenient to walk to. Schlueter stated they did not want a large business like Bella Milano generating a lot of traffic. Porter added that they didn’t want a Taco Bell or any restaurant with a drive-thru. That was part of the reason the restaurant size was restricted to that size limit. The board felt they should adhere to that requirement. It was brought up that size would only allow for a Subway type business. It really limits the type of restaurant in the neighborhood. Mallon asked if there was an alcohol requirement in this PUD. Porter stated there was not in this development. Venvertloh stated there is a potential restaurant requesting 5600 square feet with no drive-thru. Mullane stated he thought it should be brought up at the public meeting so the residents can express their  3 views. Porter stated that some of the property owners would not be the same as they may have moved. The public hearing will be on June 20th. Schlueter added that there was a lot of care and time taken to discuss this previously with the neighbors to come to an agreement. The committee discussed leaving in the pharmacy store in the PUD conditions. It was brought up that if the bank would close there would then be an option for a pharmacy to go into the existing building with a drive-thru. The existing sign complies with the sign requirements. There was a discussion with the bank letting them know that at some point the sign may need to be retro-fit to allow for everyone within the development to advertise on that sign. The bank will have to comply even if their lot is divided off. They will still be part of the PUD development plan. Porter pointed out the setback line in the northwest corner reads 23.8 feet. It should be 25 feet according to the conditions. Venvertloh agreed it would be changed. RECOMMENDATION: To move forward to Plan Commission the PUD Conditions as displayed in Exhibit B with the drawing changes. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.