Plan Commission Meeting

September 6, 2018 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING URBANA PLAN COMMISSION APPROVED DATE: September 6, 2018 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Urbana City Building Council Chambers 400 South Vine Street Urbana, IL 61801 MEMBERS PRESENT: Barry Ackerson, Jane Billman, Andrew Fell, Tyler Fitch, Daniel Turner, Jonah Weisskopf MEMBERS ABSENT: Lew Hopkins, Nancy Esarey Ouedraogo, Chenxi Yu STAFF PRESENT: Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager; Kevin Garcia, Planner II; Teri Andel, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Jeremy Chapman, Jackie Curry, Marcia Dietiker, Kimberly Hansen, Jim Heimburger, Johnathon Howard, Jeff Kanable, Nick Varchetto 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Fitch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum of the members was declared present. Chair Fitch introduced Jonah Weisskopf as being the newest member of the Plan Commission. 2. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager, noted that both items under Continued Public Hearings and the item under Old Business pertain to the same proposed development. She recommended that City staff present one staff report; however, the Plan Commission should vote separately on each case. The Plan Commission agreed. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 9, 2018 regular Plan Commission meeting were presented for approval. Mr. Turner moved that the Plan Commission approve the minutes as written. Mr. Ackerson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as written by unanimous voice vote. Page 1  September 6, 2018 4. COMMUNICATIONS There were none. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS Annexation Case No. 2018-A-01 & Plan Case No. 2347-M-18 – A proposed Annexation Agreement between the City of Urbana, the Judy Heimburger Trust, and Trinitas Development, LLC to include rezoning of an approximately 8.16-acre parcel from County I-2 (Heavy Industry) to City R-4 (Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential) located east of North Oak Street between Bradley Avenue and Kenyon Road. Plan Case No. 2348-M-18 – A request by Trinitas Development LLC to rezone an approximately 11.33-acre parcel from R-3 (Single- and Two-Family Residential) to R-4 (Medium-Density Multiple-Family Residential) located north of Carver Drive and south of Federal Drive. Plan Case No. 2349-S-18 – Union Gardens Preliminary Plat Chair Fitch opened these items on the agenda together as requested by City staff. Kevin Garcia, Planner II, presented the written staff report for the proposed cases. He began by explaining the reason for the proposed rezonings and subdivision plat requests, which is to allow the developer to develop 40 acres of farmland into a 406-unit multi-family residential development. The proposed 40 acres is separated into Site A (the easternmost site), Site B (located in Champaign County and subject to the annexation agreement and rezoning) and Site C (located in the City of Champaign). He described the zoning and existing land uses of the subject properties and of the surrounding adjacent properties. He discussed the locations of the connections to existing streets. He mentioned that the applicant conducted a traffic analysis and found that no new stop lights or other public infrastructure would need to be installed. He talked about how the proposed development related to the Future Land Use designations and the goals and objectives of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the criteria for rezoning a property and stated that City staff felt each rezoning request would be consistent with the evaluation criteria and outlined the reasons in the written staff memo. He presented City staff’s recommendation for approval of each case. Chair Fitch asked if any members of the Plan Commission had questions for City staff. Mr. Fell asked why the applicant wanted to rezone to R-4 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District if townhomes and duplexes were allowed in the existing zoning of R- 3 (Single and Two-Family Residential). Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager, explained that townhomes are not allowed in the R-3 Zoning District. While a single townhome is considered a single family use, if more than one townhome is constructed on a lot, then it is considered multiple family from a zoning perspective. The developer does not intend to subdivide each townhome into a separate lot. Mr. Fell wondered if Champaign County and the City of Champaign had reviewed the proposed development and what would happen if one or both of those entities did not approve it. Mr. Garcia stated that the City of Champaign Plan Commission reviewed the requests for the Page 2  September 6, 2018 proposed development and unanimously recommended approval to Champaign’s City Council for both the rezoning and the subdivision plat. Champaign County did not need to take any action on the proposed development. Ms. Pearson added that the subdivision plat is only preliminary at this stage. The applicant would need to submit a Final Plat in order for the subject properties to be successfully platted different from what they currently are. The Final Plat would need to substantially conform to the Preliminary Plat. Any significant changes would be brought back to the Plan Commission for additional review and approval. Mr. Fell asked if City staff was concerned with this. Ms. Pearson said no. City staff is not concerned with which entity approves the proposed requests first or if the plat would need to be revised and brought back to the Plan Commission. Urbana City staff had been in close communication with Champaign staff throughout the process. She reviewed Urbana’s process to review and approve the proposed requests and noted that the City of Champaign City Council will have reviewed and voted on the requests prior to the City of Urbana City Council. Mr. Fell asked why there would not be a connection at Dorie Miller Drive. Mr. Garcia stated that this was discussed by City staff and decided that since there is not a direct connection to Bradley Avenue and it would only serve a few units that would be located in the new development near Dorie Miller Drive. Mr. Fell questioned if the petitioner would be paying for the infrastructure or would the City of Urbana be paying for it. Ms. Pearson answered that with this level of public street, the developer would be required to construct and pay for it. Ultimately, the developer would turn the public streets over to the City to maintain. Mr. Fell wondered about the parking lot of the Pilgrim Baptist Church at 1310 North Sixth Street becoming non-conforming with regards to screening once the proposed development is constructed. How does City staff propose to handle this? Mr. Garcia replied that the City cannot retroactively enforce screening compliance on the church, especially since they are located in the City of Champaign. Mr. Turner questioned why Site B was being requested to annex to the City of Urbana and not in to the City of Champaign. Mr. Garcia explained that there is a Boundary Agreement between the City of Champaign and the City of Urbana that was entered into in 1990. At that time, Site B was designated to be annexed into the City of Urbana. He showed on a map how there were other properties immediately to the north of Site B that are already in the City of Urbana limits. Ms. Billman asked what the open spaces would be in the proposed development. Mr. Garcia replied that they would be detention ponds, which is typical. Mr. Fell inquired what the big building would be located just above the roundabout. Mr. Garcia said that the preliminary plat showed it to be a clubhouse. Ms. Billman wondered if this the proposed type of housing is needed. Mr. Garcia deferred the question to the applicant to answer when they approached to speak about the proposed development. Chair Fitch inquired about the recommended condition on approval of the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Garcia responded that there was an error when sending out the Preliminary Plat for review by Page 3  September 6, 2018 public utility and other entities. Not all of the necessary pages were included in the original review mailing, so City staff sent the review out a second time with those pages and therefore had to change the date that comments were due back. He noted that there were not any substantial comments on the original pages of the Preliminary Plat that had been sent out. The recommended condition was not terribly relevant. Ms. Pearson added that the applicant may need to change the plat a little depending on any comments that may come in. The recommended condition lets people know in the future why the plat may change from what the Plan Commission approves, if that is the direction that the vote of the Plan Commission takes. Chair Fitch reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. He, then, opened the hearing for public input. Kimberly Hansen, Manager of Design and Development for Trinitas, approached the Plan Commission to speak about the proposed development. She talked about the following: • Background on Trinitas Company • Trinitas Team • Location of Proposed Devleopment – 1402 North Fourth Street will be the official address • Purpose of the Proposed Annexation, Rezonings and Preliminary Plat • Development Proposal • Consistent with the Urbana Comprehensive Plan Goals • Access to the Site • Architectural Illustration of the Proposed Development • Property Management Operations • Community Open House Meetings held on April 3, 2018 and on August 6, 2018 • courbanize.com Mr. Fell inquired how Trinitas has decided to resolve the differences in zoning and building code requirements between the two cities. Ms. Hansen responded that the Trinitas team held a joint meeting with staff from both cities because they were aware of this issue from the beginning. Trinitas decided to construct the proposed development to the more strict requirements and would continually make sure their plans meet both cities’ building and zoning requirements. Mr. Fell mentioned that two of the buildings would be constructed half in the City of Champaign and half in the City of Urbana. He asked how the buildings would be taxed. Ms. Pearson replied that this was a topic of discussion that the City of Urbana staff held. They need to speak with the Trinitas team about what was decided. Mr. Ackerson noticed that much of the design of the proposed development was oriented towards university students; however, he envisioned young professionals and young families starting out being attracted live here. Does Trinitas anticipate having green space with play areas for children? Ms. Hansen stated that they would be targeting 20 to 30 year olds. They do expect young professionals and young families. They are still looking at the design of the project so if there is something like a playground that the City of Urbana would want, Trinitas can still look at incorporating it into the plans. Currently, they are leaning towards the basketball and volleyball courts and the pool. Mr. Ackerson asked if they planned to provide walking and bicycling trails. Page 4  September 6, 2018 Ms. Hansen said that there would be 13 acres of green space including connectivity with existing sidewalks in the neighboring properties; however, they did not intend to provide bicycle lanes. Mr. Weisskopf wondered what percentage of the units did Trinitas expect to rent to students. Ms. Hansen replied higher than 50 percent. Mr. Weisskopf inquired if the applicant had researched how many students live in the nearby area. Ms. Hansen said that her colleagues on the Acquisition Team would have performed that research. She did not have the results with her. Chair Fitch asked who would maintain the private streets. Ms. Hansen answered that Trinitas would maintain them. Chair Fitch asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak to the Plan Commission. Jackie Curry, neighbor in Carver Park Subdivision, approached the Plan Commission to speak in opposition of the proposed cases. She stated that she was opposed due to the increase in traffic that construction of the proposed development would impact on her neighborhood. Kids play on the dead end streets, one of which the development would open up and connect to. She asked what they were supposed to do. Chair Fitch said that she is doing what she should by voicing her concerns, and she would have another opportunity at the Urbana City Council meeting. Ms. Pearson added that she would also be able to voice her concerns to the Champaign City Council during their meeting. Ms. Curry wondered how long the construction process would take. Ms. Hansen replied that they hoped to begin construction in the spring of 2019 and deliver the first phase in the late summer of 2020. Mr. Turner questioned if she had spoke with any of her neighbors. Ms. Curry replied that she had spoke with a few neighbors and thought they would have attended this meeting. Ms. Curry asked if her neighborhood would be safe or do they have any reason to be concerned about losing their homes like with the development on Market Street in the City of Champaign. Chair Fitch assured her that they did not have any reason to be concerned under this proposal. Ms. Curry inquired how close the proposed development would be to her home at 718 Bethume Court. Chair Fitch said that he would have City staff clarify what the setback requirements would be. Ms. Hansen re-approached the Plan Commission to address any additional concerns they may have. Mr. Fell noticed that 90% of the people would be accessing the proposed development via Fourth Street. Is the City of Champaign okay with this? Ms. Hansen said yes. This was one of the reasons the City of Champaign asked Trinitas to conduct a traffic analysis. Ms. Billman added that traffic already gets congested around the railroad tracks. She wondered what the impact of the proposed development would be on the congestion around the tracks. Jeremy Chapman, Traffic Engineer for Trinitas, approached the Plan Commission to speak about this concern. Relying on information that they received from the City of Champaign staff, they Page 5  September 6, 2018 looked at the amount of actual traffic on the tracks. As far as backups that do occur, Trinitas found it was negligible for the concern for the traffic that would be generated for the proposed site. Main flow of traffic from the proposed site would be straight down Fourth Street because that is the main connector to campus. Ms. Billman asked if there was any consideration of installing traffic signals at Fourth Street and Bradley Avenue. Mr. Chapman said that they looked at the numbers and the requirements and because Trinitas would be offering a shuttle service to and from campus and other points of interest, that gave a reduction factor that they applied and told them a traffic signal was not necessary. With no further input from the audience, Chair Fitch closed the public input portion of the hearing and opened it up for Plan Commission discussion and/or motions. Chair Fitch inquired about the setback requirements from the Carver Park Subdivision. Mr. Garcia stated that the City of Urbana requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. Trinitas provided a preliminary landscaping plan, which shows screening between the proposed development and Ms. Curry’s property. Mr. Fell asked if there were requirements to screen the cul-de-sac at Dorie Miller Drive. Ms. Pearson reviewed what each approval would be for. A preliminary plat must meet the requirements of the Urbana Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. Site A is only subject to a map amendment (rezoning). Technically, a rezoning is not tied to a Site Plan so no conditions can be placed on approval of the rezoning for this site. Anything that is built on this site would need to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Site B is subject to an annexation agreement and a rezoning of the property. Mr. Fell believed the proposed development is a good idea. Some of the issues he mentioned will be really hard. He expressed concern about any building be constructed half in the City of Champaign and half in the City of Urbana. Ms. Pearson reiterated that was a topic of discussion at an internal meeting and there is a strong level of discomfort with this arrangement and needs to be discussed with Trinitas on how to resolve it. Chair Fitch said if the Plan Commission approved the proposed Preliminary Plat and Trinitas needed to move some buildings around then it would be reflected in the Final Plat. Ms. Pearson said that a preliminary plan is not a site plan and usually does not show buildings. Preliminary plats are designed to show the public infrastructure and lot arrangement primarily. It is not a site plan. Ms. Billman wondered if City staff received any input from the church along Bradley Avenue. Chair Fitch said no but apparently they were engaged in the process. Mr. Turner stated that the Plan Commission had even discussed in the past the need for more housing for young professionals. He liked the proposed development, but acknowledged that it would significantly change the existing surrounding neighborhood. Concerned about it becoming housing for only students. Mr. Ackerson could see many young professionals or young families renting townhomes and duplexes…not so much the undergraduate students. It is not far from the hospitals. It will greatly Page 6  September 6, 2018 change the community. He would hope it would not adversely impact the community though and he would not want to see the site left undeveloped and leave the community by itself. There needs to be some kind of smart development. Mr. Weisskopf agreed with Mr. Ackerson. He did not believe that it would only be for undergraduate students. He believed that the proposed development might be the best use of the land sandwiched between the highway and the existing neighborhood. Trinitas is taking the risk and he hoped that they have not over sold themselves on the idea of there being a lot of undergraduate students interested in living that far away from campus. Their challenge will be to create an appeal and market the units to young professionals and build a tenant base for undergraduate students against other housing projects closer to campus. Mr. Turner liked the green space and open space areas. He encouraged the Trinitas team to consider installing a playground, bike paths and bike racks and possibly even a dog park area for pets. These might help to attract young professionals and young families. Mr. Fell agreed with the demographics of who might live in the proposed development; however, they could be wrong. The City thought the same thing about building apartments next to Interstate 74, and many undergraduate students live there. He expressed concern about how they plan to handle the traffic. He acknowledged that most of the traffic will occur in the City of Champaign, who is taking an active role with what happens with the traffic because they are redeveloping the entire neighborhood on the west side of the tracks and are providing blinking lights at the intersections. Therefore, he is confident that the City of Champaign will not take a laissez-faire approach. The traffic patterns do not overly concern him because they were studied and will be addressed. Mr. Fell moved that the Plan Commission forward Case No. 2018-A-01 and Plan Case No. 2347- M-18 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Ackerson seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion was as follows: Ms. Billman - Yes Mr. Fell - Yes Mr. Fitch - Yes Mr. Turner - Yes Mr. Weisskopf - Yes Mr. Ackerson - Yes The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Mr. Fell moved that the Plan Commission forward Plan Case No. 2348-M-18 to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Ms. Billman seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion was as follows: Mr. Fell - Yes Mr. Fitch - Yes Mr. Turner - Yes Mr. Weisskopf - Yes Mr. Ackerson - Yes Ms. Billman - Yes The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Page 7  September 6, 2018 Mr. Fell moved that the Plan Commission approve Plan Case No. 2349-S-18 as recommended by City staff with the following condition: The petitioner shall address any outstanding comments from City staff or from outside agencies received on or before September 4, 2018. Mr. Turner seconded the motion. Roll call on the motion was as follows: Mr. Fitch - Yes Mr. Turner - Yes Mr. Weisskopf - Yes Mr. Ackerson - Yes Ms. Billman - Yes Mr. Fell - Yes The motion passed by unanimous vote. Mr. Garcia noted that the cases being forwarded to City Council will be presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting on September 10, 2018 and potentially to City Council on September 17, 2018. 6. OLD BUSINESS Plan Case No. 2349-S-18 – Union Gardens Preliminary Plat Please see minutes under Continued Public Hearings. 7. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS There was none. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was none. 9. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There was none. 10. STAFF REPORT Lorrie Pearson, Planning Manager, reported on the following:  CCZBA-895-AT-18 Update – The Plan Commission forwarded a recommendation to defeat a resolution of protest contingent on requiring the resolution in response to Special Use Permits by the County Board follow the procedures of Resolution of Protest including the effect requiring a super majority vote by the Champaign County Board. City staff researched and found the condition was not legal, so they did not forward the recommendation to City Council. They since had discovered that the location of the solar farms in the County would be far away from City’s Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Area and would be economically impractical to construct within the ETJ. Therefore, City Council decided not to protest. Page 8  September 6, 2018 11. STUDY SESSION There was none. 12. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lorrie Pearson, Secretary Urbana Plan Commission Page 9