Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular MeetingGeneva, IL · May 8, 2014
Minutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Geneva
109 James Street - City Council Chambers
Meeting #1143 – May 8, 2014
Chairman Rogers called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed:
Present: Commissioners Case, Dziadus, Erickson, Evans, Leidig, Mead, Chairman Rogers
Absent: Commissioners Stevenson, Stocking
Others Present: Community Development Dir. Dick Untch and Planner Dave DeGroot; Recording
Secretary Celeste Weilandt; Chicago-area Realtime Court Rptr. Joanne Ely
Public Present: Ms. Leah Jenski with Salternative, LLC; and Mr. Dave Patzelt with Shodeen Group
________________________________________________________________________________
Approval of the February 13, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Minutes of the February 13, 2014 meeting were approved on motion by Commissioner Case,
seconded by Commissioner Leidig. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0-1. (Abstain: Rogers)
Public Hearing
Planned Unit Development Amendment – Request to amend Exhibit II (Permitted Uses) of the
‐
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 1993 19A) to include “spa services and
products, including, but not limited to: alternative and holistic, floatation, speleotherapy,
acupuncture, massage, light and heat therapies and food, drink, supplements, herbs, personal
care and any other related products or other merchandise sold directly to consumers.”
Location: 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway/Applicant: Leah Jenski on behalf of Salternative LLC
Chairman Rogers read the protocol for the public hearing and swore in those individuals that would
be speaking on the above petition.
[See Transcript from Chicago-Area Real Time Reporters]
Commissioner Mead moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Leidig.
Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Mead moved to waive the two-week bifurcated process and vote on the above
petition. Seconded by Commissioner Evans. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Mead moved to approve the request to amend Exhibit II (Permitted Uses) of the
‐
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 1993 19A) to include “spa services and
products, including, but not limited to: alternative and holistic floatation, speleotherapy,
acupuncture, massage, light and heat therapies and food, drink, supplements, herbs, personal
Geneva Plan Commission -2- May 8, 2014
care and any other related products or other merchandise sold directly to consumers.”
Seconded by Commissioner Evans. Roll call:
Aye: Case, Erickson, Evans, Leidig, Mead, Dziadus, Rogers
Nay: None
MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 7-0
Concept Reviews
Amendment to the Downtown Station-Area Master Plan (Opportunity Site 3), Zoning Map
Amendment from the B2-J Business District to the R7 Multiple-Family Residential District,
Preliminary & Final Planned Unit Development - Request for conceptual review of a proposed
redevelopment of properties located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and James Street.
The concept would include demolition of 15 S. 7th Street, the two garages in the rear of 15 S.
7th Street, and the home at 627 James Street. The concept would provide six new townhomes
facing 7th Street, six guest parking spaces for the townhomes, and a new garage for the
remaining single-family home at 621 James Street.
Location: 13 S. 7th Street, 15 S. 7th Street, 621 James Street and 627 James Street/Applicant:
Dave Patzelt on behalf of the Shodeen Group
Mr. Dave Patzelt, Shodeen Group, 77 N. First Street, Geneva, Illinois, stated he was before the
commission seeking its direction on a preferred option for a development. He reviewed the location
and surrounding character of the site from of number of photographs on the overhead. A review of
the city’s zoning map also followed with Mr. Patzelt explaining that the city’s Downtown Master Plan
recognized the site as No. 9 and was referred to Opportunity Site No. 3 with “possible residentially-
scaled commercial, transition/business redevelopment, respectful of building design and intensity of
nearby James Street residences and former residences that have been converted to businesses or
business uses.” Mr. Patzelt explained that he did meet with staff in a few meetings discussing six
different concept plans with Plans 4 (the preferred plan), 5 and 6 being considered for townhomes.
Details of each concept plan followed.
Mr. Patzelt handed out a hard copy of Alternative Plan No. 4, which removed the commercial building
in its entirety and then lined up six town units facing 7 Street with garage access from the east side of
the building, similar to the Dodson townhomes located on Second Street. The mustard home would
be razed but the white home would remain and its current two-car garage would either remain or be
reconstructed (along with the stairs) closer to the white home. Mr. Patzelt believed Plan No. 4 was
ideal because the townhomes were a transitional use to the commercial use along State Street and
townhomes existed on the west side of 7th Street as well as further south on 7th Street. Setbacks
were discussed on this plan in more detail. He preferred the residential use facing 7th Street to give it
more prominence to the building and to provide vehicular access onto James Street. A review of the
setbacks also followed.
Next, Alternative Plan No. 5 would include keeping the 3000 sq. feet of the commercial building and
removing a portion of it. A three-unit townhome building would be planned, removing the mustard
house, and its front façade would face James Street, respecting the residential use of James Street.
However, vehicles would be exiting onto 7th Street and parking behind the commercial building would
be questionable. Lastly, Alternative Plan No. 6 was the same as Plan No. 5 but the vehicular access
to the commercial building would be off of James Street.
Mr. Patzelt pointed out the current challenges of the commercial building on 7th Street and whether it
was the right area for a commercial building, noting it had been vacant for many years with no interest
in a commercial use. The question was whether to remove all of the commercial or a portion of it.
Geneva Plan Commission -3- May 8, 2014
Asked if there was thought about expanding the townhome concept onto the white house since
Shodeen owned it, Mr. Patzelt indicated there was some thought but in trying to be respectful of
historic preservation, he felt the condition of the corner house was so poor that the Historic
Preservation Commission could be fine with removing that house; however, the white house was not
in poor condition, was occupied, and he surmised the HPC would have a difficult time allowing the
white house to be razed. Chairman Rogers personally supported removing the white house since he
also supported increasing density in the downtown area. If the market was right, he supported homes
on both James and 7th Streets, since renting the current commercial building on 7th Street had no
interested parties; Mr. Shodeen and the other commissioners concurred. Dialog then followed on
whether stacked flats should be considered and, if so, the building would be either three or four levels
in height, with parking or commercial located on the first floor, but the fourth floor would have to be
stepped back to minimize the massing. Asked if accessing the parking lot to the north was
considered from this site, Mr. Patzelt indicated that Mr. Anderson owned that property and had no
interest in cross access.
After each commissioner provided their input, the commissioners appeared to be in support for the six
townhomes facing 7th Street (option 4), and, in addition to removing the mustard-colored house, to
remove the white house. There was the concern about the four-story height, however. Regarding
landscaping, Mr. DeGroot indicated that by moving the current garage and the six guest parking stalls
along the east property line and pushing them further to the west, it better aligned with the drive aisle
and created a landscaped buffer. Commissioner Erickson closed by sharing some of the challenges
of leasing out the current commercial building and the fact that if commercial were to go on the first
floor, it would probably struggle like the existing commercial use. He preferred Alternative No. 4.
Dir. Untch provided staff comments which included that the HPC will want to see from Mr. Patzelt a
demolition proposal/permit which includes a condition analysis of the mustard-colored historic
building, what will it take to make the building code-compliant or viable in the market place, and can
the developer recoup that investment. Dir. Untch emphasized that both, the mustard-colored and
white buildings were contributing structures and the area was experiencing substantial reinvestment.
However, since his staff-level meetings with Mr. Patzelt, he felt more comfortable with Alternative
No. 4, with some flexibility for the north setback off of Cocoa Bean. The 10-ft. setback off of James
Street, while it may have more mass, he did not believe it was much of a departure from what
currently existed and could be “nudged up a little bit to the north.” He felt the townhomes facing
James Street made more sense, pointing out that when reviewing Alternative Plan Nos. 5 and 6, the
parking becomes “co-mingled.” Planner DeGroot also recommended that the relationship of the end
unit to James Street include architectural detail to that elevation; Mr. Patzelt concurred with adding
the details.
In response to staff comments, Mr. Patzelt believed that the justification (financial analysis) for razing
the white house will be tough but he reminded the commissioners he went through the appeal
process for Dodson House and believed the HPC would agree that the development turned out very
well. To the mixed-parking comment with commercial/residential, he did not see it as an issue and
cited Dodson Building 8 had it as well as other communities.
Chairman Rogers also shared that he hoped the HPC would look beyond the saving of one house
and consider the “greater good” of the area by having a new townhome development, thereby adding
to the density. Dir. Untch closed by explaining some of the buildings the HPC has reviewed, since
requesting financial analyses from developers, citing the HPC has preserved buildings that have been
retrofitted, and sometimes expanded, into viable uses, thereby returning the investment, whereas in
other communities, he stated some historic buildings cannot even be considered in such a way.
Geneva Plan Commission -4- May 8, 2014
Mr. Patzelt appreciated the commissioners’ input and briefly shared some of the things that have
been occurring at the Mill Race Inn.
PLAT OF SUBDIVSION
Request for conceptual review of an approximately 258 unit single-family residential
subdivision on 96 acres located at the southeast corner of Illinois Route 38 and Brundidge
Road. Property is located in unincorporated Campton Township. The applicant is proposing
to annex the property to the City of St. Charles. The concept plan will be reviewed by the St.
Charles Plan Commission on May 20, 2014 and the St. Charles City Council Planning &
Development Committee on June 9, 2014. St. Charles has request any comments the City of
Geneva may have on the proposal (due to being a mile and a-half of planning jurisdiction)
Location: Southeast corner of IL Rte 38 and Brundidge Rd./Applicant: Avanti Properties
Group
Planner DeGroot clarified that the commission was reviewing this petition because site sits within the
City of Geneva’s mile-and-a-half jurisdiction, the southeast corner of the parcel abuts the Prairie
Green Preserve, and the City of Geneva has a boundary agreement with the City of St. Charles. The
parcel was also a part of the original Settlements of LaFox subdivision some years ago with the
original lots being 12,000 sq. ft. versus the proposed lots of 6500 sq. feet. Per Mr. DeGroot, the
developer was proposing to annex into the City of St. Charles and the St. Charles Plan Commission
had not reviewed the proposal to date.
Staff comments included that this was a “testing of the waters” to see how far the developer could
push for the single-family detached product. The recent St. Charles Comprehensive Plan reflected a
rural residential development in the area and adding 250 units would impact surrounding roads that
lead into Geneva. Staff felt a full impact study would be warranted from the City of St. Charles’
perspective. Dir. Untch stated that Kane County currently listed Brundidge Road as a Rustic Road,
with the goal to keep the rural flavor of the historic road. To add the suggested amount of housing
units, the distribution of travel trips south and east to Randall Road would be significant. He also
noted that the city strongly encourage that the development not impact the Prairie Green Preserve.
After some general discussion about infrastructure and open space concerns, the commissioners
agreed that the parcel lot sizes seemed a bit dense for a rural area and the development was a bad
policy decision overall. Based on the concerns raised by commissioners and staff, Commissioner
Erickson made a motion to support staff’s bullet points of concerns. Seconded by
Commissioner Mead. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
Other Business
Planner DeGroot distributed a contact list for commissioners to review and update. He stated the
commissioners were invited to a city-hosted training workshop (put on by CMAP) located at FONA on
June 5th, 7:00 p.m. The workshop will include the Geneva Plan Commission, its Zoning Board of
Appeals, and commissioners from the Village of North Aurora, City of St. Charles and City of Batavia.
Further updates by staff included the commissioners getting computers on the dais; an upcoming text
amendment from Faith Lutheran regarding its electronic message board; the relocation of Panera
Bread to the former Applebee’s restaurant on Randall Road (drive-through); an annexation by
Resurrection Cemetery; a status of the CETRON building; and some other updates.
Adjournment
Geneva Plan Commission -5- May 8, 2014
Meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Evans. Motion carried unanimously
by voice vote.
Agenda
Meeting Agenda
CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION
MAY 8, 2014 MEETING #1143
1. Call to Order
Location
City Hall 2. Roll Call
Council Chambers
3. Approval of Minutes: February 13, 2014
109 James Street
Geneva, IL 60134 4. Public Hearing
A. Planned Unit Development Amendment – Request to
Time amend Exhibit II (Permitted Uses) of the Fabyan & Kirk
7:00 p.m. Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 1993‐19A) to include
“spa services and products, including, but not limited to:
alternative and holistic, floatation, speleotherapy,
Commissioners
acupuncture, massage, light and heat therapies and food,
Dave Rogers, Chairman drink, supplements, herbs, personal care and any other
John Mead related products or other merchandise sold directly to
consumers.”
Fred Case
Mike Dziadus Location: 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway
Joel Erickson Applicant: Leah Jenski on behalf of Salternative LLC
Mim Evans
5. Concept Reviews
Cindy Leidig
Scott Stocking A. Amendment to the Downtown Station‐Area Master Plan
Ron Stevenson (Opportunity Site 3), Zoning Map Amendment from the B2‐
J Business District to the R7 Multiple‐Family Residential
Staff Liaison District, Preliminary & Final Planned Unit Development –
Request for conceptual review of a proposed redevelopment
David DeGroot of properties located at the northeast corner of 7th Street
City Planner and James Street. The concept would include demolition of
Phone: (630) 232‐0814 15 S. 7th Street, the 2 garages in the rear 15 S. 7th Street, and
Email: ddegroot@geneva.il.us the home at 627 James Street. The concept would provide
six new townhomes facing 7th Street, six guest parking
spaces for the townhomes, and a new garage for the
remaining single‐family home at 621 James Street.
Location: Northeast corner of the intersection of James
Street and 7th Street
(13 S. 7th Street, 15 S. 7th Street, 621James Street, & 627
James Street)
Applicant: Dave Patzelt of behalf of the Shodeen Group
Plan Commission Agenda
Page 2 of 3 May 8, 2014
B. Plat of Subdivision – Request for conceptual review of an approximately 258 unit single‐family
residential subdivision on 96 acres located at the southeast corner of Illinois Route 38 and
Brundidge Road. The property is located in unincorporated Campton Township. The applicant
is proposing to annex the property to the City of St. Charles. The concept plan will be reviewed
by the St. Charles Plan Commission on May 20, 2014 and the St. Charles City Council Planning &
Development Committee on June 9, 2014. St. Charles has requested any comments the City of
Geneva may have on the proposal.
Location: Southeast corner of Illinois Route 38 and Brundidge Road
Applicant: Avanti Properties Group
6. Public Comment
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
This Plan Commission meeting is being audio tape recorded, transcribed by a court reporter and/or summary minutes are
being taken by a recording secretary. The City of Geneva complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting who require accommodations in order to allow
them to observe and/or participate in this meeting are requested to contact the Planning Division at 630‐232‐0818 at least
48 hours in advance of the meeting to allow the City of Geneva to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.
Plan Commission Agenda
Page 3 of 3 May 8, 2014
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
It is the Plan Commission’s job to conduct public hearings in order to receive testimony for and
against petitions for general amendments to the zoning ordinance, zoning map amendments, zoning
text amendments, special use permits and amendments to special use permits.
The procedure followed for public hearings is as follows:
First, the Plan Commission secretary or the designated representative will read or describe
written items, reports, and plans into the record.
Second, the petitioner will present testimony in favor of the petition and will present any
supporting plans or exhibits.
Third, the Commission members will have an opportunity to question the petitioner.
Fourth, the Commission will then receive citizen testimony both for and against the
petition. Questions about the proposal may be directed to the petitioner or petitioner’s
witnesses and questions about the Plan Commission process itself may be directed to me.
Following such testimony the petitioner and the Plan Commission may ask questions of
those who testified.
Finally, the petitioner may provide a rebuttal to any testimony in opposition.
When all the testimony is brought into the record the hearing will be closed and the Plan
Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council in the form of a motion or motions.
In order to give testimony, you must provide your name and address on the registration sheet
located at the entrance of the hearing room and sign in the space provided. By signing the
registration sheet, you agree and understand that anything you say will be considered sworn
testimony and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
When giving testimony please approach the lectern, speak directly into the microphone so
that you may be heard. Please begin by stating your name and giving your address. If you
speak additional times, please state your name each time for the record.
Please be concise when presenting your testimony and if your point has already been made, it
is not necessary to repeat it. Each of these points is recorded and will be considered as the
Plan Commission develops findings of fact and a recommendation or recommendations.
You may provide your testimony in written form, but such written testimony must be
presented to the Plan Commission secretary or the designated representative prior to the
closing of this hearing.
After the process is completed and everyone wishing to present testimony has spoken, the
Commission will then decide whether it has heard adequate testimony in order to make a
decision. If it has, the public hearing will be closed.
After a public hearing is closed the Plan Commission will refrain from receiving any additional
testimony either for or against the petition. There is one exception to this rule.
City staff will submit a report based on the testimony presented at the hearing. This report will
consider comments or concerns from all City Departments such as the Fire Department, Public
Works Department or the Engineering Department.
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
City of Geneva
109 James Street - City Council Chambers
Meeting #1142 – February 13, 2014
Vice Chairman Stocking called the Plan Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call followed:
Present: Commissioners Case, Erickson, Evans, Leidig (arrives 7:03 p.m.), Mead, Stevenson,
Vice Chairman Stocking
Absent: Chairman Rogers
Others Present: Community Development Dir. Dick Untch; Recording Secretary Celeste Weilandt;
Chicago-area Realtime Court Rptr. Paula Quetsch
Public Present: Messrs. Doug Kight, John Green, John Harper, and Dave Wilde with First Baptist
Church of Geneva
________________________________________________________________________________
Approval of the January 9, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Minutes of the January 9, 2014 meeting were approved on motion by Commissioner Erickson,
Seconded by Commissioner Mead. Motion carried by voice vote of 6-0.
Public Hearing
Preliminary/Final Planned Unit Development - Request to re-establish a preliminary planned
unit development (originally approved by Ordinance 2003-03) and final planned unit
development plan approval for Phase 2, a 23,200 square foot building addition to the existing
facility. Vice Chairman Stocking read the protocol for the public hearing (Commissioner Leidig
arrives.) and swore in those individuals that would be speaking on the above petition.
[See Transcript from Chicago-Area Real Time Reporters]
Commissioner Mead moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Erickson.
Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Mead moved to waive the two-week bifurcated process and vote on the above
petition. Seconded by Commissioner Leidig. Motion carried by voice vote of 7-0.
Dir. Untch indicated that the development team reviewed the staff submittal and provided two sets of
comments and, overall, the changes to the preliminary PUD do comply with the bulk regulations of the
B-1 Business District and the regulations of the Westhaven PUD. Significant parking is provided on-
site in excess of what is required in the city’s Zoning Ordinance. Outstanding issues have been
identified were being worked out. Staff recommended the four conditions listed in its report as
conditions for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Dir. Untch reviewed the original findings of fact issued back in 2003 as they relate to the Special Use
Standards: Standard No. 1) regarding conformity with the Comprehensive Plan -- the proposed use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as proposed; Standard No. 2) re: impact on value of
adjacent/nearby properties -- the master plan for the development of this property as a church will
include architecture and landscaping that is appropriate to the adjacent residential uses. Current
buffering to the north already exists and the addition and church are compatible with the neighboring
uses; Standard No. 3) re: potential impact on traffic, traffic congestion, and parking -- the existing
church and proposed addition will provide sufficient parking to meet the needs of the worship services
Geneva Plan Commission -2- February 13, 2014
and other activities; heaviest use will occur on Sunday mornings when traffic on nearby roadways is
minimal. Access points into the site have been established and approved by the appropriate
agencies; Standard No. 4: re: ingress/egress -- the two existing entrances will remain as part of the
use and its expansion; Standard No. 5: re: adverse effects/changes in the character of the area -- the
existing church and expansion are a compatible use and in scale with the residential subdivisions
and, architecturally, the church and expansion have a compatible relationship with the neighborhoods;
Standard No. 6) re: adverse impact on the use/development of adjacent properties -- the existing
church and expansion will not adversely affect the use/development of adjacent properties due to the
access from arterial roads, compatible architecture, and building scale and openness of the property;
Standard No. 7: re: adequacy of utilities and drainage, parking -- stormwater management and
retention are currently provided on-site and meeting the existing and future site development of the
property as planned; Standard No. 8: re: compliance with all City regulations, conditions and
requirements -- the development does comply with the requirements of the City’s codes and the
standards that have been established in the original PUD; and Standard No. 9: re: architectural
appeal and function -- the architecture is compatible with the adjacent residential uses and churches
are considered compatible with residential uses. Based on those findings, staff recommended
approval of this request.
Commissioner Mead moved to approve the request to re-establish a preliminary planned unit
development (originally approved by Ordinance 2003-03) and final planned unit development
plan approval for Phase 2, a 23,200 square foot building addition to the existing facility,
including the four (4) conditions listed in staff’s report and including staff’s original findings of
fact. Seconded by Commissioner Evans. (Commissioner Leidig recuses herself.) Roll call:
Aye: Case, Erickson, Evans, Mead, Stevenson, Stocking
Nay: None
Abstain: Leidig MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: 6-0-1
Public Comment - None
Other Business - Dir. Untch reported on the following: computer laptops and electronic packets will
become available May 2014; City Council approved the sign variation for the Country House; Pulte
Homes (from last month) is looking to submit its packet in March 2014; and the Downtown Zoning
Ordinance update is moving forward thanks to the technical assistance of the RTA. Details followed.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning is assisting the City and is moving forward with the housing
plan, with draft housing policy recommendations to be discussed by the Geneva Housing Task Force
next month, followed by City Council review. Historic Preservation staff is looking to provide a series
of videos on various topics involving historic preservation as well as an update of the city’s 1999
Historic Resources Survey. To date, there is no mention of changing districts.
Dialog followed on the new medical marijuana law, the location of growing centers and dispensaries,
and the strict requirements for such facilities. Dir. Untch envisions that if such a petition were to come
forward, a presentation to the Committee of the Whole would occur initially to get direction. Vice
Chairman Stocking noted that interior neon lighting in some of the businesses was becoming a
concern, wherein Dir. Untch stated the new sign regulations should address that issue specifically.
Lastly, Dir. Untch reported that a number of applications have been received for the new Plan
Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals.
Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. on motion by Commissioner Evans. Motion carried unanimously
by voice vote.
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 4A FABYAN & KIRK
MAY 8, 2014
PUD AMENDMENTS
SALTERNATIVE LLC – 1541 E. FABYAN PKWY
Applicant
Leah Jenski
Location
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit
Development – 1541 E.
Fabyan Parkway
Request
Amendment to Exhibit II
(Permitted Uses) of the Fabyan
& Kirk Planned Unit
Development (Ordinance 1993‐
19A) to include “spa services
and products, including, but
not limited to: alternative and
holistic, floatation,
speleotherapy, acupuncture,
massage, light and heat
therapies and food, drink,
supplements, herbs, personal
care and any other related
Figure 1. Location Map. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
products or other merchandise
sold directly to consumers.”
BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL
Recommendation
Leah Jenski would like to open Salternative Spa in the one‐story
Staff will provide a office building located at 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway. Salternative Spa
recommendation at the would offer natural, alternative healing and relaxation experiences.
conclusion of the public Services would include floatation therapy, speleotherapy,
hearing. acupuncture, massage, and light and heat therapies. The spa would
Staff Liaison also sell food, drinks, herbs, and other personal care products and
merchandise. Please see the attached project narrative for more
David DeGroot
information on services and operations. The property at 1541 E.
City Planner
Fabyan Parkway is located in the Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit
Phone: (630) 232‐0814
Development (PUD), which was approved by the City in 1993. The
Email: ddegroot@geneva.il.us
PUD established a specific list of uses that are permitted by right.
Health spas are not listed as a permitted use in the PUD. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Fabyan and Kirk
Salternative LLC: Fabyan & Kirk PUD Amendment
Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item 4A
PUD to define the term “spa services and products” and allow them a use permitted by right.
REQUEST
Amendment to Exhibit II (Permitted Uses) of the Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit Development (Ordinance
1993‐19A) to include “spa services and products, including, but not limited to: alternative and holistic,
floatation, speleotherapy, acupuncture, massage, light and heat therapies and food, drink, supplements,
herbs, personal care and any other related products or other merchandise sold directly to consumers.”
Table 1. Surrounding Property Information. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
LOCATION ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Subject Property B1 Business District Multi‐tenant office buildings Commercial
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit
Development
North F Farming District Vacant/undeveloped Commercial
Unincorporated Kane County
South GC General Commercial Vacant/Undeveloped General Commercial
District City of Batavia
East B1 Business District Comfort Inn & Suites Commercial
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit
Development
West B1 Business District Country House Restaurant Commercial
Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit
Development
REVIEW COMMENTS
Permitted uses in the Fabyan & Kirk PUD fall into one of five categories: 1) office, business, and services
uses; 2) research and development uses; 3) light industrial uses; 4) public/quasi‐public and governments
buildings, facilities and uses; and 5) commercial uses. Please see Exhibit II (attached) of the PUD for a
complete list of permitted uses. The PUD was intended to allow for a mix of uses, including commercial
and service uses. Spas are typically allowed as a permitted use in commercial zoning districts. Massage
therapy, spas, and health services are listed as permitted uses in each of the City’s five business districts
(including the B1 District which is the underlying zoning of the PUD). The applicant’s request to allow
spa services and products is consistent with the City’s zoning regulations and the intent of the Fabyan &
Kirk PUD. The proposed is also compatible with existing uses in the development and in the surrounding
area. Please see Table 1 above for information for surrounding property information including existing
zoning, existing land uses, and future land use designations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will provide a recommendation at the conclusion of the public hearing.
REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS: NEXT STEPS*
1. May 22, 2014 – Plan Commission deliberation and recommendation to City Council
2. June 9, 2014 – Committee of the Whole review and recommendation to City Council
Salternative LLC: Fabyan & Kirk PUD Amendment
Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item 4A
3. June 16, 2014 – City Council consideration of request
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit II (Permitted Uses) of the Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit Development (Ordinance 1993‐19A)
Proposed Amendment to the Fabyan & Kirk Planned Unit Development
Project Narrative – Background & Operations Summary
Floor Plan
25
EXHIBIT I1
PERMITTED USES
1. Office/business/service uses:
Bank and/or financial institutions.
Business offices.
Computer and/or data processing centers.
Corporate headquarters/operations.
Personnel training centers.
Professional offices.
Regional sales offices excluding warehousing.
Merchandise and product display, but no direct sales.
Medical research facility, excluding
hospitals/emergency facilities.
2. Research and development uses:
Design firms.
Electronic and comunication industries.
Experimental product development.
Laboratory, non-manufacturing.
Research firms including incidental pilot plant
operations.
3. Light industrial uses:
Defined as the production processes, including testing,
carried on under circumstances such that the activities
shall not be injurious of offensive to adjacent
property owners by reason of emission or creation of
noise, vibration, smoke, dust, fly ash, fumes, vapors,
gases, particulate matter, or other forms of sir
pollution or solid wastes, fire or explosion hazards,
or ether hazsrds. All the referenced activities
involved in production shall be carried on, and all
storage areas contained, with completely enclosed
facilities that are of materials similar to materials
used in the principal building.
Light industrial operations of electronic and
communications industries.
Light industrial operations of experimental-product
development firms.
Light industrial operations of pharmaceutical
industries.
Light industrial operations of research firms.
4. Public, quasi-public and government buildings,
facilities, and uses:
Essential services -- gas regulator stations, telephone
exchange, electric substation, well site, and water
storage facility.
Office building, but not including Post Office or mail
handling facility.
Fire/Police stations.
5. Comercial uses:
Restaurants and restaurants with accessory cocktail
lounges, except in no event shall "drive-through"
service be permitted.
,
Private membership health clubs. I
Hotel or motel.
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 5A CONCEPT REVIEW
MAY 8, 2014
SHODEEN GROUP
7 & JAMES STREET PROPERTIES
TH
Applicant
Dave Patzelt, Shodeen Group
Location
Northeast corner of the
intersection of James Street
and 7th Street
(13 S. 7th Street, 15 S. 7th
Street, 621James Street, &
627 James Street)
Request
Conceptual review of a
proposal by the Shodeen
Group to redevelop properties
located at the northeast corner
of James Street and 7th Street.
The proposal would require an
amendment to the Downtown
Station‐Area Master Plan, a
Zoning Map Amendment from Figure 1. Location Map. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
the B2‐J Business District to the
R7 Multiple‐Family District, and
BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL
Preliminary & Final Planned As shown in Figure 1, the subject property is located at the northeast
Unit Development approval. corner of James Street and 7th Street (including 13 S. 7th Street, 15 S.
Recommendation 7th Street, 621James Street, & 627 James Street). The property is
currently improved with two single‐family homes and a
Staff has no recommendation
commercial/office building. The property is zoned B2‐J Transitional
at this time. This conceptual
Business District and is designated for “Residentially Scaled
review provides the Plan
Commercial” use in the City’s adopted Downtown Station‐Area
Commission with an
Master Plan. Please see Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3 for surrounding
opportunity to ask questions,
property information including existing zoning, existing land uses,
provide informal review
comments, and convey any and future land use designations. The Shodeen Group, applicant and
concerns they may have. owner of the property, is requesting conceptual review of a proposal
to redevelop the property to add 6 new townhome units. The
concept would include demolition of the commercial building (15 S.
Shodeen Group Concept Review
Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item 5A
7th Street), the 2 garages in the rear 15 S. 7th Street, and the home at 627 James Street. The property is
located in the Historic District so demolition permits would require approval by the Historic Preservation
Commission. The six new townhomes would face 7th Street. Access would be provided off of James
Street to attached townhome garages, six guest parking spaces for the townhomes, and a new garage
for the remaining single‐family home at 621 James Street. Please see the attached project narrative,
photographs, and conceptual site plans for more information.
REQUESTS
At this time the applicant is requesting conceptual review of a proposal to redevelop the property for 6
new townhome units. The proposal would require the following:
1) An amendment to the City’s adopted Downtown Station‐Area Master Plan to change the future
land use designation of the property from “Residentially Scaled Commercial” to “Multi‐Family
Residential”.
2) A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from the B2‐J Transitional Business District to
the R7 Multiple‐Family Residential District.
3) Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development Plan Approval
Table 1. Surrounding Property Information. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
LOCATION ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Subject Property B2‐J Transitional Business Commercial/office, single‐ Residentially Scaled
District family residences Commercial
North B2 Business District Commercial/retail Downtown
Commercial/Mixed‐Use
South R5 Low Density Two‐ and Single‐family residences Single‐Family Attached
Three‐Family Residential Residential
District
East B2‐J Transitional Business Single‐family residence Residentially Scaled
District Commercial
West B2 Business District Commercial/retail shopping Downtown
center Commercial/Mixed‐Use,
Multi‐Family Residential
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation at this time. The Plan Commission is not expected to formulate a
recommendation on the proposed redevelopment at this time. This conceptual review provides the
Plan Commission with an opportunity to ask questions, provide informal review comments, and convey
any concerns they may have.
ATTACHMENTS
Project Narrative
Conceptual Site Plan
Alternative Conceptual Site Plans
Opportunity Site 3 – Downtown Station‐Area Master Plan
Shodeen Group Concept Review
Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item 5A
Figure 2. Zoning Map of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
Figure 3. Future Land Use Designation of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area, based on the 2013 Downtown Station‐
Area Master Plan. Prepared by Geneva Planning Division, May 2014.
April 28, 2014
David DeGroot
City of Geneva
22 S. First Street
Geneva, IL 60134
Re: Northeast corner of James and 7th Street, Geneva IL
Concept Plan Review
Dear David:
After several presentations of various plans for redeveloping the northeast corner of James
and 7th Street, as well as several staff reviews of the various proposed plans, we respectfully
request the Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission review and provide
concept feedback on three of the suggested plans.
For background information and recent history of the subject properties following are a series
of photographs of the subject property and surrounding area.
a) Looking east on James from 7th
b) Existing homes on the north side of James east of 7th
c) A two car garage and warehouse with an overhead door exist in the rear of the subject property
d) East side of 7th Street with James Street on the right and the parking lot on the left of the existing Cocoa Bean
pastry shop
e) Looking north on 7th from James Street
Existing zoning:
The Geneva Zoning map indicates the property is zoned B2‐J. B2‐J is a Transitional Business
District which allows for dwelling units above the ground floor only. The buildings on the
property are currently permitted as they are legal non‐conforming.
Comprehensive Plan:
The property is designated as “Residentially Scaled Commercial” in the City’s adopted land use
plan. As shown above, it is also called out in the Opportunity Site 3 in the Downtown Station
Area Master Plan as “possible residentially scaled commercial (transition business)
redevelopment respectful of the building design and intensity of nearby James Street
residences and former residences that have been converted to business uses.”
Occupancy:
The commercial buildings were last occupied with a commercial user who vacated in
December of 2009. Since that time the commercial property has been marketed for lease
during different periods of time by Shodeen Management, Summers Commercial Realty and
Murray Commercial Realty. In February of 2013, an interior demolition was completed to strip
the interior of the building space back to just load bearing walls to try and make it more
marketable. As of the date of this letter, no viable commercial user has been obtained. The
white residential unit has been occupied and continues to be occupied. The yellow corner
house was vacated by the last market rate tenant in 2004. The white house has been occupied
with market rate tenants.
Proposed Plan:
We prepared and presented at least 6 different plans for the proposed development of the
subject property. The plans were reviewed by City Staff and a variety of comments were
offered on each of the plans. These plans can be basically described as follows:
1. Remove the entire commercial building and both residential units, build a mixed‐use
development with first floor commercial, 3 floors of residential apartments/condominiums
and underground parking.
2. Remove the entire commercial building and both residential units, build 3 levels of
residential on top of a first floor enclosed parking level with false windows
3. Remove a portion of the commercial building keeping approximately 3000 square feet and
remove the yellow corner house, build two new row houses facing James Street.
4. Remove the entire commercial building, remove the yellow corner house, retain the white
house on James Street, build 6 Townhome units fronting 7th Street, parking access in the
rear. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #4 – preferred option.
5. Remove a portion of the commercial building, keeping approximately 3000 square feet of
the existing, remove the yellow house, retain the white house and build 3 new townhomes
fronting on 7th Street. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #5.
6. Remove a portion of the commercial building, keeping approximately 3000 square feet of
the existing, remove the yellow house, retain the white house and build 3 new townhomes
fronting on James Street. This plan is attached as Alternate Plan #6.
Alternative plans 1 – 3 noted above were generally found not to be acceptable to City Staff for
a variety reasons and thus copies are not being provided. We mention them so that the
various commissions are aware that they were investigated. Alternate plans 4 ‐6 were well
received and generated less questions of staff. Thus we are requesting the Historic
Preservation and Plan Commission to consider Alternate Plans 4 ‐6. The Shodeen preferred
plan is plan #4 for a variety of reasons which include:
a. The existing commercial property has been marketed for many years and we have not
obtained any interest in the commercial use. Thus the property needs to have a different
use.
b. Townhomes are a good transitional use between residential and commercial.
c. The townhome use is already incorporated in this area with townhomes directly across
the street on the west side of 7th, townhomes on the south side of James west of 7th, and
townhomes on the east side of 7th between Fulton and South Streets.
d. The City of Geneva has expressed an interest in increasing the population in and around
the downtown business districts.
e. Townhomes fronting on to 7th Street would provide a non‐driveway, building face along 7th
Street and would provide residential building and architecture that would face the
residential along James Street much like the Dodson Townhomes on 2nd Street as shown
below:
Regardless of which Alternate Plan is approved and redevelopment of the subject property will
require:
i. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
ii. Zoning Map Amendment
iii. And most likely a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development
I look forward to having a discussion with as well as obtaining definitive direction from the
Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission relative to the proposed
redevelopment of this property.
Sincerely
David A. Patzelt
Community Development Department Report
CITY OF GENEVA PLAN COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM 5B CONCEPT REVIEW
MAY 8, 2014
THE BLUFFS OF ST. CHARLES
IL ROUTE 38 & BRUNDIDGE ROAD
Applicant
Avanit Properties Group
REQUESTS
Location
Request for conceptual review of an approximately 258 unit single‐
Southeast corner of Illinois family residential subdivision on 96 acres located at the southeast
Route 38 and Brundidge Road
corner of Illinois Route 38 and Brundidge Road. The property is
Request located in unincorporated Campton Township. The applicant is
Conceptual review of an proposing to annex the property to the City of St. Charles. The
approximately 258 unit single‐ concept plan will be reviewed by the St. Charles Plan Commission on
family residential subdivision May 20, 2014 and the St. Charles City Council Planning &
on 96 acres Development Committee on June 9, 2014. St. Charles has requested
any comments the City of Geneva may have on the proposal. Please
Recommendation
see the attached plat of survey, location map and conceptual site
Staff has no recommendation plan for more information.
at this time. This conceptual
review provides the Plan RECOMMENDATION
Commission with an Staff has no recommendation at this time. The Plan Commission is
opportunity to ask questions, not expected to formulate a recommendation on the proposed
provide informal review redevelopment at this time. This conceptual review provides the
comments, and convey any Plan Commission with an opportunity to ask questions, provide
concerns they may have.
informal review comments, and convey any concerns they may have.
Staff Liaison
ATTACHMENTS
David DeGroot
City Planner Location Map
Phone: (630) 232‐0814 Plat of Survey
Email: ddegroot@geneva.il.us Conceptual Site Plan