Plan Commission Meeting

February 21, 2013 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING URBANA PLAN COMMISSION APPROVED DATE: February 21, 2013 TIME: 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Urbana City Building City Council Chambers 400 South Vine Street Urbana, IL 61801 MEMBERS PRESENT: Tyler Fitch, Lew Hopkins, Dannie Otto MEMBERS ABSENT: Carey Hawkins-Ash, Andrew Fell, Michael Pollock, Bernadine Stake, Mary Tompkins, Marilyn Upah-Bant STAFF PRESENT: Robert Myers, Planning Manager; Rebecca Bird, Planner II; Teri Andel, Planning Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Alm, Tom Berns, Stephen Corcoran, Steve Konter, Tim Mast, L. Ramu Ramachandran, Deb Reardanz, Mike Rennor, David Trail, Jerry Walleck, Carl Webber, Ron Wilcox 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM Tyler Fitch served as Acting Chairperson. He called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The roll was called, and he declared that there was not a quorum of the members present. 2. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were none. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to lack of a quorum, the minutes of the February 7, 2013 Plan Commission meeting were continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 4. COMMUNICATIONS  Email from David Wilson regarding Plan Case No. 2202-PUD-13 and Plan Case No. 2203-PUD-13. Page 1  February 21, 2013 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS There were none. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was none. 7. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS Plan Case No. 2202-PUD-13 and Plan Case No. 2203-PUD-13: A request by Clark-Lindsey Village, Inc. for preliminary and final approval to construct a Residential Planned Unit Development to include 16 townhouses in four one-story buildings on the northeast portion of the subject property located at 101 West and 201 East Windsor Road. Rebecca Bird, Planner II, presented the two plan cases together to the Urbana Plan Commission. She began by stating the purpose for the preliminary and final PUD requests. She presented background information on Clark-Lindsey Village which is a not-for-profit corporation providing housing and care for the elderly. As a Continuing Care Retirement Community it provides a range of housing options for the elderly all in one campus. Clark-Lindsey Village has been developed through a series of Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals granted by the City of Urbana beginning in 1973. The approved Preliminary PUD covered the entire property, but only the existed development received a Final PUD. The Preliminary PUD for the remainder of the site, including the area under consideration, lapsed before 1987. The current PUD applications are quite similar to what had once been approved, and Ms. Bird pointed out minor differences between the two. Ms. Bird pointed out that the written application refers to a new street with access to Windsor Road, which reflects the initial application submittal. Given Access Management Guidelines adopted by the City, the site plan was amended to reflect is now under consideration by the Plan Commission. Ms. Bird reviewed the current land uses, zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the subject property as well as adjacent properties. She discussed how the proposed PUD requests relate to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. She stated how the proposed PUD development is consistent with Section XIII-3.C of the Urbana Zoning Ordinance, specifically with regards to applicability requirements, permitted uses in a residential PUD, minimum development standards for planned unit developments, and the criteria for approval of a planned unit development. She asked that when the Plan Commission votes at a future meeting that they make separate motions for each the preliminary and final cases. She stated that there were several representatives present to speak on behalf of Clark-Lindsey Village and the applications. Mr. Fitch asked the Commissioners if they had questions for or clarifications from City staff. Mr. Otto referred to the recommended design features listed in the PUD ordinance concerning public open spaces and asked if any part of this development would be accessible to the public. Page 2  February 21, 2013 Ms. Bird replied that the grounds now have a walking path which is connected to Meadowbrook Park. Although Clark-Lindsey has posted a sign stating that it is private property it does not prohibit Park visitors from entering Clark-Lindsey property. The applicant could speak more directly to this issue. Mr. Fitch questioned whether City staff has contacted the Urbana Park District about the proposed PUD cases. Ms. Bird answered that City staff has notified the Park District about the preliminary and final PUD requests. However, the Park District has not provided any comments on the application. Mr. Fitch said he was curious why the east boundary of Clark-Lindsey Village had a “notch” of land removed from their property. Ms. Bird explained that the Park District owns that land and which was purchased with public money meaning that they cannot sell it. Ms. Bird noted an email she had received from David Wilson, a resident of Willard Street and whose house backs up to Windsor Road, who opposes granting the applications. A copy of the email was distributed to the Plan Commission. Mr. Hopkins asked for clarification on what area the Plan Commission would be approving for the preliminary PUD request and what they would be approving for the final PUD request. He would assume the general configuration of existing and future roadways would be approved under the preliminary. Ms. Bird stated that Clark-Lindsey Village included the extension of the roadway all the way to S. Race Street in part to identify how a utility gas line would be extended from Race Street to serve the new townhomes. The Preliminary PUD application only requests approval for the townhome expansion area. Mr. Hopkins stated that the old Preliminary PUD approved a different roadway configuration. Ms. Bird responded that the previously approved preliminary PUD has lapsed. With no further questions for City staff, Acting Chair Fitch opened the public hearing and asked for any public comments. Carl Webber, attorney for Clark-Lindsey Village, Inc., introduced Deb Reardanz of Clark- Lindsey; Jerry Walleck and Ramu Ramachandran of Perkins Eastman; and Tom Berns, Clark- Lindsey Village Board. Mr. Webber stated that Ms. Bird presented most of the information that he was going to talk about. He added that there are particular advantages to a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). It provides the ability for a couple to stay together even when one person needs skilled nursing services and the can live independently. Deb Reardanz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Clark-Lindsey Village, stated how the proposed expansion is important to the future of Clark-Lindsey Village. The expansion is a natural progression to bring Clark-Lindsey back to full capacity. They will be able to update their amenities and bring the best programs to their residents and to the community at large. Clark-Lindsey’s future success and their commitment to their residents depend on them remaining competitive in this market. Regarding public access to the grounds, the sign at the Meadowbrook Park entrance is not meant to keep people out. It is meant to keep dogs on leashes Page 3  February 21, 2013 and to keep roller bladers and fast moving wheels off the sidewalks. The public is welcome to walk on the grounds. Ramu Ramachandran, project architect, introduced his professional team. He stated that Clark- Lindsey is a great neighbor to the Urbana Park District and great stewards of the land on which they are located. He showed the similarity between what is being proposed and what currently exists on the subject property. Rather than creating a “wall” of development along Meadowbrook Park, his team decided to lay out the townhouses so that the end of the units would face the park and visually extending the park into grounds. The low height and small scale along with the openness of the proposed units are the most important design factors to reducing the visual impacts on Meadowbrook Park. The types of materials being proposed to be used will blend in with the character of the park as well. He discussed the criteria that Clark-Lindsey required and talked about landscaping of the project. Mr. Fitch asked which view in Exhibit E would be facing the park. Mr. Ramachandran referred to Page 2 of the elevation drawings. The end residential units will have windows facing the park so residents will be able to enjoy the park’s view. Mr. Otto asked why Clark-Lindsey did not follow the original street and building layout as previously approved by PUD. The proposed layout will require an increase in the amount of pavement needed. Jerry Walleck answered that Meadowbrook Park can now be viewed in the distance by residents of the existing Clark-Lindsey Village units. Had they developed the next phase as originally planned, it would have blocked the view of the park with a “wall” of new residences. After a lot of discussion amongst their team, they decided to turn the layout of the units so that the sides of the units face the park. This allows a funneling of the view of the park for the existing buildings. Each unit of the proposed buildings will still have some view of the park. Additionally, this new layout will create more of a pocket neighborhood with a higher level of community and more privacy. The old street layout would mean every unit would have cars driving by, but the new townhouse clusters mean less traffic in front of homes. Furthermore, the proposed configuration of the road will also provide flexibility for future development along the south and southwest portion of the site. Mr. Otto commented that Meadowbrook Park is a major asset for Urbana, and the path along the west side of the Park adjacent to the proposed townhomes is well used. The transition between the park edge and the new townhomes will need to be handled sensitively to address park users’ concerns. Mr. Walleck replied that given the low scale and building orientation, and once landscaping takes hold, it will be hard to see where the park ends and Clark-Lindsey Village begins. Mr. Fitch asked how much above grade the new residential units would be elevated from the ground level of Meadowbrook Park. Mr. Ramachandran stated that the east ends of the first floors will be elevated 4½ to 5 feet higher than the park path. Landscape plantings will help soften the views from the park path. Mr. Hopkins asked about the elevation of the south building compared to the grade level elevation. Mike Rennor, Eriksson Engineering, replied that the grade where the south buildings Page 4  February 21, 2013 will be constructed is sloped. To construct the buildings, they will level the area at the center point so the east side of the buildings will be above the grade level elevation. Mr. Hopkins stated his concerns about the proposed configuration of the new roadway, which are as follows: 1) safety for residents backing out of existing garages, 2) emergency vehicle access and 3) approving a roadway configuration as part of a preliminary PUD that might impede or limit development in future phases. Mr. Ramachandran replied that one reason for the proposed road configuration is to make it safer for residents backing out of their garages. Concerning vehicular access, Ms. Bird commented that the Urbana Fire Department is comfortable with the street configuration for this phase because it does not require fire trucks to back up or turn around before being able to respond to a fire. The fire trucks can pull into the driveway and then back up in leaving. With regards to Mr. Hopkins’ third concern, Mr. Webber stated that Clark-Lindsey Village does not know at this time how many and what type of additional units they will build in future phases. When creating plans for future phases, they know they will have to make the plans fit around the proposed road configuration. Since this area of the property is a separately platted lot, Clark-Lindsey Village could have taken the position that they would develop it under the existing R-3 zoning meaning that there would have been no public review of the project. And arguably they would have had a right to have new street access on Windsor Road. But they agreed to continue development under a Planned Unit Development as they had done in previous phases. Ms. Reardanz added that Clark-Lindsey Village Board has discussed their options for future developments phases. They do not feel that it would be good to present those options at this time, because they do not know how the market is going to react to this phase. Clark-Lindsey is concerned about being flexible in developing future phases. Mr. Ramachandran added that they have discussed different ways to configure the road and there are numerous issues to consider. He talked about how they want to protect the beautiful gardens that Clark-Lindsey has spent much time and money investing in. They do not want to place the road too close to the detention area and limit the possibility of future development on the south side of the road. They cannot eliminate the walking path that doubles as an emergency access road. They do not want to eliminate the existing gardens that Clark-Lindsey has invested a lot of time and money in creating. Mr. Ramachandran also stated that they have come up with some excellent water management ideas to slow the water down. Mr. Hopkins asked if they planned to use any impervious pavement in the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Walleck replied that they have to be careful with this because pavers can over time make an uneven surface for people with walkers to walk across. The pavement must support accessibility for elderly residents. Page 5  February 21, 2013 Mr. Hopkins asked residents of the southern townhouses will walk to the dining hall. Mr. Ramachandran responded that they are still considering connector points. Tom Berns, Chairman of the Board for Clark-Lindsey Village, stated that they have worked with the Urbana Park District on several projects, including these applications. Clark-Lindsey Village has enjoyed working with the design team. He talked about his personal history with Clark- Lindsey Village and how he and his wife plan to live here someday. He stated that Clark- Lindsey’s goal is not to maximize revenues. They just want to continue to have the finest facility of this type in the country. Clark-Lindsey’s philosophy has been “However good we are today, we are going to be better tomorrow.” With no further comments, Acting Chair Fitch stated that the public hearing would be continued to the March 7, 2013 Plan Commission meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS Plan Case No. 2200-M-13: Approval of the Official 2013 Zoning Map of the City of Urbana, Illinois The Plan Commission opened this case and continued it to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Plan Commission. 9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There were none. 10. STAFF REPORT There was none. 11. STUDY SESSION There was none. 12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Robert Myers, AICP, Secretary Urbana Plan Commission Page 6