Land Use

1 LAND USE COMMITTEE EDWARDSVILLE PLAN COMMISSION August 4, 2016 PRESENT ABSENT Beth Schlueter, Chairman Veronica Armouti, Vice Chairman Jill Buford William Catalano Larry Miller John Mullane, PC Chairman Mark Rabe Ben Powell Paul Pitts Scott Hanson, Staff James Koers, Staff Jason Plummer, RLP Development Rob Schmidt, RLP Development Marsha Maller, TWM At the regular meeting of the Plan Commission's Land Use Committee, the following was discussed: Case 2016-17: Towneplace Suites / Starbucks – Planned Unit Development Developer: RLP Development Engineer: TWM Scott Hanson gave staff’s report. The proposed Planned Unit Development is located on what is presently two parcels of land (assigned just one PIN: 14-1-15-22-00-000-002.001) on the northeast corner of the intersection of IL Route 157 and Center Grove Road. The property is zoned B-2 Commercial/ Business district. The property is approximately 1.97 acres. The developer is RLP Development. The site originally had an ATM on it. It has been since removed. The subject property is generally flat in character. The City of Edwardsville will provide sanitary sewer, water and police/fire protection to the subject tract. Electric and gas utilities are provided by Ameren Illinois. The subject tract is within the “Commercial” District on the 2010 Comp Plan. The proposed PUD is consistent with the 2010 Comp Plan. Site is accessible via a full ingress/egress onto Plummer Drive. Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has determined that a driveway at Center Grove Road will be a “right out only” egress onto Center Grove Road. The PUD Development Plan provided by the developer’s engineer dated 7/29/16 shows the Center Grove Road ingress/egress and “right in/ right out.” This will need to be amended to reflect IDOT’s requirement. No direct driveway access to the site will be allowed via IL 157. Staff supports that request from IDOT. Maller stated there are discussions with IDOT showing the benefits to the Hotel for the right-in/right-out. This would avoid going past the line at Starbucks which City staff is anticipating but the developer is not. Schlueter stated she had an email from the Plan Commission Chairman, John Mullane who voiced concerns with access along Goshen Road. She feels that is a valid conversation. She asked staff if the City Engineer has concerns with that issue. Hanson stated there was a question about access being allowed or granted. The plat from 1999 for RLP East commercial development which shows when Plummer Drive was extended South to Center Grove Road there was Outlot A and Outlot B. Outlot A will be partially covered by Starbucks. This particular lot was not part of the development so it was allowed partial access with the existing curb cut. Without access to Center Grove Road, this lot would be legally land locked. The access can be restricted but it cannot be eliminated entirely. Schlueter asked even though it is now being combined as part of the PUD.  2 Hanson stated he would have to check with the City Attorney but the City Engineer stated there would still have to be access. Maller wanted to add that most developments with a hotel have 2 entrances for fire protection purposes and safety concerns. Schlueter would also like Hanson to check with the Fire Department regarding that requirement. She shares the same concerns as Mullane but Maller has raised a valid point for safety. Rabe asked about the function to Center Grove Road with the proposed additional lane. Schlueter stated Hanson indicated funds should be released for the construction of an additional lane. Hanson stated there will be a dedicated right hand turn to go north on State Route 157. This will not affect the ingree/egress point. The full lane will not begin until you get West of the access point. There will be 3 lanes, 1 dedicated to go North on State Route 157, 1 lane to go straight or turn left, and/or to continue straight on Center Grove Road which has been extended, and 1 lane dedicated to turn left and head South on State Route 157. This means as you make the right out of this development, you will not be in the turn lane, you will be in the lane to allow you to go straight or turn left at this intersection. Schlueter wanted confirmation that this was up to the state and not the City. Maller stated the application that would be submitted is for the intersection. Center Grove Road is not under IDOT’s jurisdiction. Any improvements outside of the intersection would be determined by the City. The plan that was submitted to IDOT is preliminary. Additional studies will have to be conducted before final plans will be drawn up. A traffic study was done and they were pleasantly surprised that the impact of these 2 uses will not adversely affect this intersection. She used the information submitted to IDOT from the City of Edwardsville. The traffic study was done during school hours. Buford has problems with the right in at this access point because of the kiosk for Starbucks. She thinks everyone will use this entrance instead of the entrance off Plummer Drive because the kiosk location. Schlueter agreed. Schlueter stated she would be in favor of the right out but not the right in. Maller stated that once this Starbucks location is open, it will alleviate some of the traffic at the other location. It should not generate more traffic than is what it is at the other location. If you request 1 entrance to this site, you will have the same situation as Best Buy. They have 1 entrance to each site and no one can get out of either. They are trying to accommodate Starbucks and the number of queuing but may be a risk of doing something detrimental to the other use which is the Towneplace Suites. Schueter referenced the items that Hanson was going to check with the City Engineer and Fire Department about regarding the access on Center Grove Road. Rabe requested that Hanson also check with the City Attorney about the land locked lot which now includes Outlot B. Would that change the analysis at all? Hanson stated Starbucks will be 100% brick exterior. The Towneplace Suites building will be 22% brick, 25% fiber cement board with a “masonry” appearance, and 53% EFIS (Exterior Finish Insulation System) (+/- 60%), and fiber cement siding/paneling (+/-20%). The inclusion of brick on the buildings is a positive as most of the surrounding buildings in the vicinity have a significant amount of brick on the building exterior. Staff is happy with the building materials. The board is also satisfied with the proposed materials. Hanson moved on to the next item. Public sidewalks are in place along IL 157. The applicant will install sidewalks along the north side of Center Grove Road and the west side of Plummer Drive. These sidewalks will connect to existing sidewalks on IL 157 and Plummer Drive. The developers are working with the school to extend the fence also which the City appreciates. Schlueter asked if someone decides to stay at Towneplace Suites, how would they get to the bike trail if they wanted to run. How do the people staying at Holiday Inn get to the bike trail? Schmidt stated the bike trail comes up to the school on the back side. There is not an official connection at the cul-de-sac of Plummer Drive. MCT did not want the liability of that connection. There is a walking path along State Route 157.  3 The subject tract is zoned Commercial/Business District (B-2). As part of the PUD Development Plan negotiations, the developer can request setbacks that are less than what is required in the B-2 zoning district. In this case, per the Zoning Ordinance, the “front” property line is the east property line (along Plummer Drive). B-2 requires the following setbacks: Required Proposed Front (Plummer Drive) 50 foot minimum 22.79 feet (Starbucks east façade to prop. line) Side 25 foot minimum 79.19 ft (south); 71.57 ft (north) Rear (IL 157) 25 foot minimum 30.38 ft (hotel west façade to prop. Line) Hanson wanted to make note that the buildings are not required to be oriented in relation to “front/side/rear” setback lines. Staff has no objection to the proposed building setbacks for this PUD Development Plan. Schlueter asked how much larger the proposed Starbucks is compared to the existing one in the Dierbirgs development. Plummer thought it was 300 or 400 square foot larger. Schlueter stated that brings up another issue because people will want to park and go in and have their meetings there. Plummer replied that the building is 300 or 400 square foot larger it will be longer and narrower. The proposed building will only be 15% or so larger and the seating will be quite similar. Hanson asked how flexible they are with the location of their dumpster. It was suggested to move the location 1 parking space to the east. Schmidt asked if the City would allow them to work with the dumpster company to get an agreed location. The enclosure will be full masonry. Hanson asked for the submittal of a lighting plan. He reminded the developer that the photometric plan will have to show zero light spillage at the property lines. Miller asked about the requirement for parking for 5 employees which would probably be management. He would figure 3 housekeepers per floor which would require 15 more spaces. Schmidt explained that most of the staff will be onsite when the clientele is not. They would be cleaning whenever people leave. The traffic flows very well for hotels. Miller thought they would need additional parking. Plummer stated there is additional parking across the street which has been discussed with City staff. Buford would like to see an existing use like this to watch the traffic flow. Schlueter asked if the hotel will have meeting rooms. This would be another item to consider because there would be a need for additional parking. She is speaking from experience. Plummer stated there are 2 meeting spaces. One will have about 8 chairs and the larger would have about 16 chairs. Plummer wanted to point out that they are trying to be as comprehensive as possible with staff, police department, fire department, and also the school district. Hanson wanted to remind the developer they are free to negotiate for commercial signage beyond what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance during the PUD public hearing process. While staff requested a “sign package” that provides proposed sign size, height and location details, the applicant’s engineer indicated that the developer is requesting approval of the PUD contingent upon separate approval of a formal sign package which will be submitted at a later date.” Staff is not comfortable with this “carte blanche” approach. At minimum, what the developer is seeking should be more clearly stated so a comparison can be made between what the Sign Code normally allows and what is proposed. At present, all signage shown on the PUD Development Plan should be considered “conceptual/illustrative” only. Staff will work on a solution to signage prior to the August 15th Plan Commission meeting or suggest other alternatives. Plummer stated until the developer gets something approved for the site, the companies involved will not proceed with designing anything. Maller asked if later they would like to get a variance on the signage, would that go through a public  4 hearing. Hanson stated it could be recommended to go straight to City Council and not go through the Plan Commission. Hanson explained the requirements for monument signs as requested by Plummer. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation to be approved by the Plan Commission as present with 2 caviats: 1) don’t deal with the signage at all, 2) not making a recommendation, at the moment, on the access point on Center Grove Road. The board is leaning for a right out only but not doing anything pending on additional information from staff. The rest is being recommended to go forward as presented. REMINDER: PLAN COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Avenue.