Members Physically Present: Mr. Boser, Mr. Broad, Mr. Matejka, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Widergren, Mr. Zimmerman

Transcription

1 TOWN OF NORMAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2017, 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING, UPTOWN STATION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11 UPTOWN CIRCLE, NORMAL, IL Members Physically Present: Mr. Boser, Mr. Broad, Mr. Matejka, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Widergren, Mr. Zimmerman Members Absent: None Others Present: Brian Day, Corporation Counsel, Ms. Davison, Town Planner, Mr. Troemel, Director of Inspections Call to Order: Mr. Boser called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. and noted that a quorum was present. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Matejka moved, seconded by Mr. Broad, to approve minutes of the June 10, 2017, meeting. The minutes stood as written. Public Hearing: a. PC : Zoning Text Amendment (Addition of Dog Kennel to M-2) Ms. Davison summarized the proposed zoning text amendment to add kennels, with or without dwelling unit for superintendent to the list of permitted uses in the M-2 General Manufacturing District. Ms. Davison briefly explained the purpose of the M-2 zoning classification and stated that the applicants for the item would like to operate a kennel with an outdoor recreational area a use not currently permitted in M-2. Ms. Davison stated that the presence of kennels in the Town s industrial areas would likely have no negative effect on the harmony or purpose of the M-2 zoning classification. Areas zoned M-2 are well-equipped for larger amounts of traffic, feature adequate utilities, and would likely not be disrupted by any possible noise created by animals temporarily housed at a kennel. The staff recommendation is positive. Mr. Broad asked for clarification on whether kennels are allowed in areas zoned for general manufacturing in the City of Bloomington. Ms. Davison stated that, yes, Bloomington does allow for kennels in their M-2 zoning, but that an additional public hearing requirement is linked to kennels with a proposed outdoor component. Ms. Davison added that the permitting of kennels is consistently allowed in manufacturing districts in the region, but that municipalities often differ on how a kennel s outdoor space is permitted. No testimony was offered.

2 Mr. Matejka moved to approve the zoning text amendment as proposed. Ms. Widergren seconded. The motion carried 6-0. b. PC : Amended Final Development Plan, Constitution Trail Centre PUD (West Side of Bradford) Mr. McFarland recused himself. Ms. Davison summarized the proposed amended final development plan for the Constitution Trail Centre PUD to permit the development of an OSF medical office on the west side of Bradford Lane. Ms. Davison explained that the proposed location lacks an exact address currently, but that the one-story, brick/stone office building would be generally located across the street from Discount Tire. The property s proposed design would meet both landscaping and lighting standards, and compliment other businesses and the shared aesthetics of each building in the Constitution Trail Centre. Lastly, Ms. Davison noted that the office property will feature a paved connection to the trail around the neighboring detention basin for employee. and visitor access. The staff recommendation is positive. Mr. Broad stated his appreciation for the property s adherence to the Town s exterior lighting standards and asked if the office s exterior signage would also meet code requirements. Ms. Davison replied that the property s sign package would include a monument sign near the street and one on the building itself, both of which would meet code requirements. No testimony was offered. Mr. Matejka moved to approve the amended final development plan as proposed. Mr. Broad seconded. The motion carried 5-0. c. PC : Zoning Map Amendment (1845 W. Hovey) This item and the item pertaining to the approval of a site plan for 1845 W. Hovey were heard collectively. Ms. Davison explained, however, that each item would be voted on separately. Ms. Davison summarized the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone 1845 W. Hovey from M-1 Restricted Manufacturing to S-2 Public Lands & Institutions and to approve a Site Plan for the property s use as a church. Ms. Davison explained that the applicant is interested in using a property zoned for restricted, light manufacturing as a church, which is currently not a permitted use in the M-1 zoning class. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property in question to S-2 Public Lands & Institutions a zoning class that does allow churches as a permitted use. Ms. Davison explained that the following item to consider a site plan for the property is a requirement of any property zoned S-2. Ms. Davison stated that staff recommendation was negative. Recognizing that the S-2 zoning classification is often used in residential and sometimes commercial areas to insert buildings and organizations into contiguously zoned areas to provide meaningful services for the community, Town staff did not agree with the proposition of rezoning one property S-2 in a contiguous area of M-1, light industrial zoned properties. Town staff did state, however, that if the property were to be rezoned S-2 and made to function as a church, there would likely be no adverse effect on surrounding properties and businesses.

3 Mr. Boser asked if the type of rezoning proposed might be considered spot zoning. Mr. Day answered that rezoning such a property to S-2 could be considered spot zoning, but added that that was not the reason Town staff s recommendation was negative. The greater concern was removing a property planned and zoned for light industrial use from its intended purpose. Ms. Davison added that the property had not been vacant for more than a few years. Mr. McFarland and Mr. Boser asked and received clarification from Town staff on the difference between rezoning an entire property and amending the zoning code to allow for a specifics use s listing as a permitted use in a certain zoning classification. Additionally, Mr. Troemel explained the intended purpose of the M-1 zoning classification. Citing the zoning map and the M-1 zoned area of W. Hovey being discussed, Mr. Broad asked why spot zoning is often consider a bad or shortsighted practice. Mr. Day stated that when large areas are zoned the same it is usually based off a municipality s needs and goals for a specific area based on a comprehensive plan. M-1 zoning is generally meant to serve as a buffer between residential areas and heavily industrialized areas. Inserting S-2 zoning into an area zoned exclusively M-1 could lead to further dilution of the buffer area. Mr. McFarland asked if a light industrial business could find space elsewhere or in an area zoned M- 2 if the church were to be housed at the proposed location. Ms. Davison stated that that was a possibility. Mr. John Pratt, 217 E Washington Street, Bloomington, testified as the attorney for the applicant, The Tabernacle Church. Mr. Tim Ferrell, 1266 Berkley Road, Normal, also testified as the pastor for The Tabernacle Church. Mr. Pratt began by stating that The Tabernacle Church was founded in 2012 and that it currently meets in the Holiday Inn Express in Bloomington. The church formerly met in a space in an outlet mall. Mr. Pratt stated that the church is under contract to purchase the space at 1845 W. Hovey and would like to use the property as its permanent meeting space for the foreseeable future. Mr. Pratt expressed his understanding in the Town wanting to maintain the M-1 zoning classification in this area of W. Hovey, but argued that the area is not currently utilized for its intended, light industrial use. Mr. Pratt cited the location of a Unit 5 School District office, a janitorial supply warehouse, a landscaping business, and several other offices spaces all directly nearby the proposed church space. Mr. Pratt also noted farmland and a veterinary clinic across the street to the north and a long-vacant property to the east of 1845 W. Hovey. In a question and answer exchange with Mr. Pratt, Mr. Ferrell offered his reasons for wanting to locate on W. Hovey. Mr. Ferrell stated that his church has looked at over 30 possible locations for a permanent location for The Tabernacle Church in the Bloomington-Normal area. Mr. Ferrell noted the lack of churches in the area, low Sunday traffic, and the building s space to expand as key reasons why the proposed location would be ideal. Mr. Ferrell also noted the possibility of having a mid-week meeting of small groups at the location in addition to a regular Sunday service.

4 Mr. Pratt concluded by stating that the area is already not being used for its intended purpose and cited Town staff s own opinion that the church s situation in the area would have no negative impacts on the surrounding businesses. No other testimony was offered. Mr. Boser asked for clarification on what Unit 5 s office on W. Hovey is used for and if it truly has no light industrial component on site. Mr. Troemel stated that the office does have a somewhat substantial warehouse attached to the building that also houses regular offices. Mr. Boser then stated that all businesses surrounding 1845 W. Hovey could probably be considered light industrial in their use. Mr. Matejka moved to approve the zoning map amendment as proposed. Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The motion failed 4-2. d. PC : Site Plan (1845 W. Hovey) This item and the item pertaining to the approval of a zoning map amendment for 1845 W. Hovey were heard collectively. Ms. Davison explained, however, that each item would be voted on separately. Mr. Matejka moved to approve the site plan with the conditions noted in the staff report upon the approval of the zoning map amendment for 1845 W. Hovey by the Town Council. Mr. Broad seconded. The motion carried 6-0. e. PC : Zoning Map Amendment (603, 605, 701 N. Fell, 204, 206 W. Cypress) Ms. Davison summarized the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone 603, 605, and 701 N. Fell and 204 and 206 W. Cypress from R-1A Single Family Residential to R-3A Medium Density Multiple Family. 603 and 605 N. Fell, Ms. Davison explained, are two long-vacant lots held under common ownership with the owner of the apartment building at 701 N. Fell. Aside from the proposed rezoning of the three N. Fell properties, the applicant proposes the rezoning of the homes at 204 and 206 W. Cypress Street from single-family to multi-family residential. Ms. Davison explained that 701 N Fell and 204 and 206 W. Cypress are non-conforming to the R-1A zoning classification and operate as rental and multiple family rentals or apartments. As non-conforming structures in R-1A zoning, these three rental properties can continue as such unless they remain vacant for more than six months or be more than 50 percent damaged by a fire, in which case, they could only be rebuilt or used as single-family housing. Ms. Davison stated that the staff recommendation was negative for this item. First, Cypress Street/alley serves as a natural northern boundary to the multiple family zoning to the south, which is entirely occupied by university students. Second, the properties in question do not have a history of vacancy. Third, it would be inappropriate to rezone the properties as recommended and leave one property at the corner (601 N. Fell) as R-1A Single Family. Finally, the extension of multifamily zoning further into an established single-family area particularly adjacent to the historic district would likely have a negative impact on the surrounding properties.

5 Mr. Jason Barickman, 202 N. Center Street, Bloomington, testified as the attorney for the applicants. Mr. Barickman summarized the challenging situation of the owner of 701 N. Fell and its existence as a non-conforming apartment building in an R-1A zoned neighborhood. Mr. Barickman explained that 701 N. Fell features 30 units/60 beds and is occupied 100 percent by college students. The houses on Cypress, according to Mr. Barickman, are also occupied by students. As a nonconforming apartment building, there are serious limits on what can be done to improve 701 N Fell today and any further investment into the property cannot be justified. Mr. Barickman urged the commission to recognize the area for its current use as multi-family housing and rezone it as such. Lastly, Mr. Barickman stated the owner of 601 N. Fell was the only area homeowner he had discussed the proposed rezoning with. Mr. Duane Yockey, 508 Normal Avenue, stated that he is the vice president of the Old North Normal Neighborhood Association, but that the association has not yet met since the rezoning proposal came to light. Mr. Yockey stated that he has lived in his Old North Normal home since He said numerous neighbors have said that they are proposed rezoning of the five properties just north of Cypress Street to multi-family residential. Mr. Yockey expressed his fear of more northward movement of R-3A zoning into north Normal s historic, single-family neighborhoods; the degradation of R-1A zoned homes and lower property values; and increased traffic and noise concerns likely to be generated by more students living north of the natural boundary between single-family and multi-family housing that Cypress has long provided. In opposition to Mr. Barickman s testimony, Mr. Yockey stated that 701 N. Fell appears to be an attractive and recently improved property. Mr. Robert Chambers, 700 N. Fell, testified as a 30-year resident of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Roberts stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning noting that 601 N Fell once had singlefamily residences on either side of it. As not a part of the proposed rezoning to R-3A, Mr. Chambers stated, 601 N Fell would be surrounded to the north, west, and south by multi-family housing complexes. Mr. Chambers expressed his hopes that the two vacant N. Fell lots and homes along W. Cypress someday return to single-family homes. Mr. Chambers last stated that if R-3A zoning were to continue to spread northward and neighborhood property values were decreased, single-family homeowners might see less reason to repair or maintain their homes. Ms. Jeannie Rankin, 705 N. Fell, testified as a 30-year resident of the neighborhood in question. Ms. Rankin expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning noting the likelihood of the R-3A zoning classification s continued expansion to the north if the five properties in question were to be rezoned. Ms. Rankin later asked and received clarification on the process by which a single-family home may be demolished. Ms. Teddi Siebring, 109 W. Poplar, testified as a recent, 2-year resident of the neighborhood in question. Ms. Siebring stated her opposition to the proposed rezoning citing safety concerns related to environmentally friendly demolition practices, increased traffic, and past incidents of college students breaking glass near school bus pick-up locations in the neighborhood. Mr. Douglas Cutter, 802 Normal Avenue, testified as an Old North Normal Historic District resident. Mr. Cutter stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning and cited recent efforts by the Town to return former non-conforming student apartment houses in the area back to single-family residences.

6 Mr. Don Norris, 601 N. Fell, testified as a resident of the neighborhood and the owner of the corner property not included in the applicant s rezoning proposal. Mr. Norris stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning based on safety concerns related to increased traffic in the area. Mr. Ryan Brown, 500 N. School Street, testified as a resident of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Brown expressed his opposition to the proposed rezoning because Cypress Street should mark that kind of development s northern boundary. Mr. Roger Thomas, 711 N. Fell, testified as a 27-year resident of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Thomas stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning and noted that recent improvements had been made to 701 N. Fell, in contrast to Mr. Barickman s earlier remarks. Ms. Katherine Oberhardt, 710 N. Fell, testifies as a resident of the neighborhood in question. Ms. Oberhardt expressed her opposition to the proposed rezoning and stated her hopes that a park or outdoor area similar to the Hidden Creek Nature Sanctuary could be considered for developments on vacant lots like those in question on N. Fell. Ms. Ellen Morgan, 603 Normal Avenue, testified as an Old North Normal Historic District resident. Ms. Morgan testified in opposition to the proposed rezoning citing concerns of increased noise and traffic in residential areas. Mr. Charles and Nadine Sila, 504 N. School Street, testified as residents of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Sila stated his opposition to the rezoning and expressed fears of unsafe, increased traffic from the narrower Fell Avenue onto Cypress and School Street. Mr. Pat Rankin, 708 N. Fell, testified as a resident of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Rankin stated his opposition to the proposed rezoning and expressed concerns over the loss of valuable greenspace and yards for the pets of any tenant of what might be a large apartment complex s construction on the rezoned site. Mr. Ward Workman, 1902 Widermere Drive, testified on behalf his mother who is a resident of the neighborhood in question. Mr. Workman expressed his and his mother s opposition to the rezoning stating concerns of unsafe, increased traffic on Cypress Street, the possible congestion of parking on neighborhood streets, and the possibility of decreased home values. Mr. Boser ended the public hearing. Mr. Broad expressed his understanding and compassion for the owner of 701 N. Fell s unique situation as a non-conforming property in an R-1A zoned neighborhood, but stated it would be difficult as a commission to approve a proposed rezoning that is so widely opposed by the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Boser agreed with Mr. Broad and urged Mr. Barickman to see if his clients might consider building single-family residences on the property.

7 Mr. Matejka moved to deny to the proposed zoning map amendment. Mr. Broad seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Other Business: None Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Taylor Long Associate Planner