City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met April 6.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Greenman at 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Greenman called the meeting to order. On roll call, members Atkinson, Greenman, Jouron, Repholz, Skluzacek and Teetsov were present. Member Gronow was absent.
Kathryn Cowlin, Director of Community Development, Michael Magnuson, Director of Public Works & Engineering, Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner, Abigail Wilgreen, City Engineer and Commander Luke Behning were present from Staff.
Mr. Greenman said this meeting is being recorded for broadcast and future playback on the City’s cable channel. He led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 16, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Jouron moved to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2022 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call, members Jouron, Atkinson, Repholz, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed.
Mr. Gronow arrived at 7:03pm.
2022-31 – 150 N. MAIN STREET – CRYSTAL LAKE BREWERY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT –
This is a continuation of the public hearing started on March 16, 2022 for the amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow an expanded outdoor seating area.
John O’Fallon and Beth Alberger were present to represent the petition. Mr. O’Fallon showed pictures of the space. The brewery is a 13,200 square foot former industrial building now used for brewing and a tap room. The outdoor area has rope lighting and the City expanded the lighting across the intersection. This use fits well with Downtown. Mr. O’Fallon went through the support letters and highlighted some of the things people said. Less than 20% of the overall area is being converted to outdoor area. The nook is separate from the main parking lot and lends itself to the outdoor area. The layout is organic and tables and chairs would be moved for bag tournament. Mr. O’Fallon took his own noise readings. The north side had nothing, and the east side across the street was very low approximately 54 dB. When vehicles drive by, the numbers jump to 65 dB and 75 dB. He discussed the police calls and reports. They will change the speaker system to a set of three so it can be lower with the same or better distribution. He showed the site rendering and noted this is their grand vision. He noted the City is adding a crosswalk and signage.
Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Frank Corey at 95 Gates submitted a letter of objection. He stated the brewery added speakers in 2015, which is when the problems started. The noise ordinance states that all exterior speakers must be turned off after 10pm. They have been in continuous violation of this ordinance. He stated just because there were support letters and people like it, it does not mean that some people do not like it. Downtown should be looked at like it is a shopping mall.
Ms. Kelly Fraser at 71 Gates Street stated she has lived in her home for about a year. She stated her family loves the brewery and that it is very family friendly. There is no noise at Gates Street and First Street, and there is more noise from Duke’s and Labemi’s. Her family likes to sit outside, and there is a sense of community. Everyone who orders food is supporting other businesses as well.
Mr. Kevin Fraser at 71 Gates Street stated he has lived in Crystal Lake his whole life. This company cares so much about the community and other local businesses. It is a great place to be. He hopes it can continue.
Ms. Susan Platek at 173 First Street stated she has lived there 38 years. She stated she has watched Downtown flourish over the years. During COVID, everyone had to scramble to try to serve customers. They are so accommodating to customers. She does not hear loud noises, but she can smell food trucks, which is nice. She stated it is so great to meet up with friends.
Mr. Eric Lecuyer at 3809 Shenandoah Drive stated he has lived in Crystal Lake since 1963. He stated the noise level comes from cars or motorcycles when they are revved up. His family celebrated his father’s 90th birthday at this location. He stated they meet the Findings of Fact.
Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing.
Staff summarized the request.
Mr. Greenman asked how many citations the brewery has received. Commander Behning responded there have been zero adjudication tickets.
Ms. Teetsov stated this adds to Downtown. She thanked the petitioners for providing additional information. She thanked the City for the crosswalk and signage. She asked the petitioners if they were planning on doing any permanent shade structures. Mr. O’Fallon responded yes they would provide several.
Ms. Repholz was supportive of the request. She stated this will make a positive impact on the Downtown. She supports the request if the music is turned off at 10pm.
Mr. Atkinson stated he was glad the petitioners provided a more detailed presentation. He stated change is inevitable and there is a lot of support by the community. Mr. Atkinson how close the seating area is to the intersection. Mr. O’Fallon responded there is 15-20 foot buffer from the corner plus a fence.
Mr. Gronow echoed the thoughts of support. He iterated there have been no violations. His only concern is the number of new seats outside.
Mr. Jouron stated the petitioners did a nice job on trying to mitigate the noise. He asked if they spoke with any neighbors. Ms. Alberger responded they spoke with some neighbors who were in support.
Ms. Skluzacek asked if inside seating was open after 10 or 11pm. Ms. Alberger responded they shut music down 30 minutes before closing time outside.
Mr. Greenman asked the petitioners if they are okay with the conditions. Mr. O’Fallon responded yes. He stated the petitioners did a great job addressing the concerns. He stated the request meets the Findings of Fact.
Ms. Teetsov made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit Amendment with the following recommended conditions:
1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:
| A. Application (O’Fallon, received 02/22/22) | |
| B. Outdoor Seating layout (O’Fallon, undated, received 02/22/22)
C. Speaker layout (O’Fallon, received 03/24/22) | |
3. Food trucks are not permitted to use amplified sound on the property.
4. The beer garden outdoor area shall close by 10:00 p.m. Sunday-Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
5. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of Community Development Department.
Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Jouron, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed 7-0.
2022-46 – 241 EDGEWATER DRIVE – RESIDENTIAL VARIATION
Variation from Article 3 Front Yard Setback to allow a 5-foot extension to a deck, which will encroach 11.2 feet into the required 71.2-foot front yard setback.
Mr. Gerry Meyer was present to represent the petition. He provided a presentation of the request. He stated because of the way the setback is calculated instead of a 5-foot variation, they need an 11.2-foot variation. They need a larger deck for accessibility, especially wheelchairs.
Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak on the request, he closed the public hearing.
Staff summarized the request.
Mr. Greenman asked the petitioner if he is okay with the conditions. Mr. Meyer responded yes. Mr. Skluzacek stated he is okay with the request. It is far enough off the lake, and has no issues. Mr. Jouron and Mr. Gronow stated they had no concerns with the request.
Mr. Atkinson stated he believes there is a hardship and does not have a concern.
Ms. Repholz and Ms. Teetsov stated they support the request. Ms. Teetsov stated she is happy they are making it accessible.
Mr. Greenman thanked the petitioner for the presentation. He stated the request met the Findings of Fact.
Mr. Skluzacek made a motion to approve the Variation with the following recommended conditions:
1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:
A. Application (Meyer, received 03/15/22)
B. Site Plan (Meyer. undated, received 02/11/21)
2. The deck shall remain unroofed and open on all sides.
3. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of Community Development Department.
Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Jouron, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Motion passed 7-0.
2022-73 – 112 CRANDALL AVENUE – RESIDENTIAL VARIATION
Variation from Article 3 Yard Abutting a Street from the required 21-foot corner side setback along North Shore Drive to allow 14 feet and from the required 20-foot rear yard setback along the alley to allow 12 feet for a new house.
Mr. Joe Gottemoller, attorney and Mr. Michael McIntyre, petitioner were present to represent the petition. Mr. Gottemoller stated this is an old, very small lot at approximately 50 feet by 140 feet. It is also very unique as it has frontages on three sides. When you average the setbacks, there is little land left to build on. They wanted the house closer to Crandall to see the lake, but then it would have required another variation. Mr. Gottemoller spoke to the unique locations of homes in this area and how accessory structures can be so close to the street. In order to build a modest size home, they need variations. He feels they meet the Findings of Fact. They meet the sight line requirements. He spoke to storm water and the Crystal Lake Watershed and they need to have a French drain. This will be tied into storm water line, which flows into the wetland to the east. He stated they are okay with engineering review.
Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Matthew Siegers at 122 S. Crandall Avenue stated that many walk in the road or on the sidewalk along this lot and North Shore Drive. The sight lines and traffic is very scary. He is very glad the speed limit was lowered to 25mph. There are some items that will block this, such as trees, telephone poles, and cars in the driveway. The house will keep the sidewalk blocked from the sun so it will be icy. The City has done good improvements in the area. The alleyway has always been a river going down it.
Mr. Mark Gates at 116 Crandall Avenue stated this will impact the supply of light and air to his house and backyard. It will reduce the property values. It does not meet the definition of hardship. You cannot build the footprint you want, and you should try to stay within the confines of the ordinance.
Ms. Robin Reed at 840 North Shore Drive has lived here her whole life. She stated she is very aware of flooding. There is too much congestion over here. She is more concerned with people walking and biking. She spoke to the dimensions of the lot and the proposed dimensions of the home. She does not want sanitary backup.
Mr. Jim Heisler at 131 Baldwin complimented the City for the resurfacing, striping and storm water improvements. He stated has lived here for 32 years. He has seen floods, droughts, and crowds of people walking and biking around the lake. He stated his dog was recently killed by a vehicle on the road. He would like the size of the home reduced and the driveway off the alley so vehicles do not need to back up onto North Shore Drive.
Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing.
Ms. Maxwell explained the requested setbacks and how setbacks are determined. Ms. Wilgreen reviewed the stormwater requirements and addressed that a condition of the permit would be to replace the sidewalk if the drainage pattern is not correct. Ms. Wilgreen further explained the petitioner will have to compensate for new impervious surface and will need to install an infiltration trench. The trench will be tied into the stormwater sewer main, which goes to East Street and then to the Lake.
Mr. Greenman asked with no home, where does the water go. Ms. Wilgreen stated it flows wherever now and post-build conditions will concentrate water into the trench and then to storm sewer. Mr. Magnuson stated that from the improvements a few years ago, the City also revamped the stormwater requirements for new residential. The ordinance now takes into consideration the impervious added and soil types when determining the trench drain location and length, overall this is a much better trench drain process.
Mr. Gottemoller stated they are okay with the storm sewer connection so water will not impact adjacent properties. The driveway will go to North Shore. There will be no more variations. There is less room available abutting the alley and moving the driveway off of the alley could limit snow piling. The variation is not impacting air or light to neighbor to the south who has the same side yard setback. Since this lot was platted in 1920, there have been many changes to the ordinance.
Mr. Atkinson stated his concern with water seems to be addressed. Most of these lots are small and non conforming. He stated he can support this better if the driveway were off the alley.
Ms. Repholz asked the petitioner when the lot was purchased. Mr. McIntyre responded about 20 years ago.
Ms. Teetsov noted if a car is parked in the driveway it blocks the sidewalk and blocks sight to North Shore.
Mr. Gronow asked if the front yard setback calculation reduces the size of the garage. It makes sense to have the driveway off the alley.
Mr. Jouron asked when the storm water improvements will go in with the house. Ms. Wilgreen stated the trench drain goes in at the same time as the house, it is all the same building permit.
Mr. Skluzacek stated it seems flooding has been addressed and should get better with the house construction.
Mr. Greenman discussed the driveway. Mr. Gottemoller there is more concern with the driveway coming off the alley. Mr. Greenman stated he is okay with what is proposed. He stated they have a hardship.
Mr. Atkinson made a motion to approve the Variation with the following recommended conditions:
1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:
A. Application (McIntyre, received 03/10/22)
B. Site Plan (Sarillo dated 03/08/22, received 03/10/21)
C. Sight Triangle Exhibit (Sarillo, dated 03/29/22, received 03/29/22)
2. This property is located within the Crystal Lake Watershed. Any new impervious will need to be compensated for with the construction of infiltration trenches to be sized utilizing the Crystal Lake Watershed Existing Urbanized Residential Requirements.
3. The proposed infiltration trench shall be connected to the existing storm sewer along North Shore Drive so any overflow from the infiltration trench will not move southward down Crandall Avenue or the alley.
4. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of Community Development Department.
5. Add condition #5 – Change orientation of garage door to west side off alley with no additional variations.
Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Jouron, Gronow, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Ms. Repholz voted no. Motion passed 7-0.
2022-38 – 88 RAILROAD STREET – THE JUNCTION – PARKING VARIATION Variation from the required parking of 16 on-site spaces to allow 11 spaces, a variation of 5 spaces.
Mr. Jim Tomasek was present to represent the petition. Mr. Tomasek stated he leased 88 Railroad Unit B. He is proposing permanent outdoor patio seating with approximately 20 seats adjacent to the building. It will bring a sense of community.
Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing.
Owner of Matt’s Tavern at 92 Railroad Street stated parking in the area is shared. There are only a few spaces now and they cannot lose any more. They want Railroad Street to be converted to customer parking for the businesses instead of Metra parking. The commuter parking lots are 30% full.
Mr. James Campion at 8600 Route 14 was present to represent 82 Railroad Street. He stated the building has a loading dock behind and the only access behind is a prescriptive easement which they are in litigation over right now would not want spaces blocking access.
Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing.
Staff summarized the request.
Ms. Repholz stated she does not understand the hardship. Mr. Tomasek stated is it not a traditional hardship. They are working to enhance the Downtown.
Ms. Teetsov asked if the City has been looking at parking downtown, many other towns along the train line have parking garages. Ms. Cowlin stated just last fall, the City did a parking study and found that there is a lot of available parking with high turnover, people need to walk a short distance, a parking garage is not warranted and staff is reviewing the Railroad Street suggestion. Ms. Teetsov recommended more signage about available parking in the area. Mr. Tomasek stated the typical table turnover is 90 minutes so two-hour parking works well.
Mr. Atkinson stated he is in support of the business, but parking is an issue there. They need to increase parking in this area.
Mr. Gronow and Mr. Jouron questioned if a hardship exists for this request.
Mr. Skluzacek stated there is plenty of parking downtown.
Mr. Greenman stated the way the ordinance is set up can cause undo harm to how to operate the business. Ms. Cowlin responded the Downtown encourages shared parking, as 75-80% of businesses Downtown would need a variation. This is no different.
Mr. Skluzacek made a motion to approve the Variation with the following recommended conditions:
1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:
| A. Application (Pence, received 04/01/22) | |
| B. Floor Plan (Proline Mechanical, dated 04/10/20, received 02/25/22)
C. Outdoor Seating layout (Tomasek, undated, received 02/25/22) | |
3. Any expansion of the seating area or a change of use to a more intense use may require additional parking variations.
4. Clean up and restripe the parking lot to gain as many spaces as possible. Submit a plan to the City for review by August 1, 2022. The work shall be completed by November 1, 2022.
5. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of Community Development Department.
Mr. Jouron seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Jouron, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Members Gronow and Repholz voted no. Motion passed 5-2.
2021-131 – 5689, 5657, 5561, 5577-5583, 5593, 5607-5615, 5625 and 5641 NORTHWEST HIGHWAY – WATER’S EDGE – REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
Rezoning to B-4 Mixed-Use Business, Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for a mixed-use development.
Tom Burney, attorney, Tony DeRosa, Fiduciary Real Estate Development Corporation, Paul Sheridan, Hamilton Partners, Elise Renwick, NORR Architects and Jared Placek, Manhard Engineering were present to represent the petition.
Mr. Burney introduced the development team and Mr. DeRosa gave a summary of the proposed mixed use development. The last time the Commission saw the plans were 11 months ago for a conceptual review. Mr. DeRosa gave a summary of the development groups past experience. The project is a horizontal mixed-use development that will be $125 million investment. It will create a new tax base and Fiduciary will act as the master developer. In order to attract users, a level of approval is needed. The residential side will have rent rates ranging from $1,500 to $3,000.
Mr. Sheridan reviewed the commercial development side of the plan. The Colonial Café parcel is ideal for a full-service restaurant. The grocery user is 40,000-45,000 square feet in size. The property to the south of the grocery user is considered the flex parcel, it could be commercial, a hotel or owner-occupied townhomes.
Mr. DeRosa reviewed the plan for the public open space. Highlighting the public art, seating areas, lighting, and landscaping.
Mr. Greenman opened up the public hearing. There was no one in the public wishing to comment on the item.
Ms. Cowlin shared staff will go through each major section of the plan for the Commission’s comments and discussion. Ms. Cowlin reviewed the site plan layout, circulation, roadway layout and land uses. Ms. Wilgreen reviewed the traffic impact study by Gewalt Hamilton and the recommendations from the report. The study included traffic from recently approved developments and was also adjusted to pre-pandemic numbers to be conservative.
Mr. Jouron stated he loves it and has no comments on the site plan.
Mr. Skulazeck agreed with Mr. Jouron.
Mr. Gronow asked about phasing. Mr. DeRosa responded from development team that the infrastructure and Water’s Edge Boulevard would be first, then residential with the grocer. The commercial could go at the same time, right now users want to know when the project is starting and who is anchor. Mr. Gronow shared it is a great plan but there would be more questions down the road.
Mr. Atkinson thought the townhomes would be better than the hotel. Layout is good and loves open space. We do have 6 grocery stores in town, is another one needed.
Ms. Repholz shared she is excited about the housing inventory. Loves the outside place. Mr. Sheridan asked if she would rather the hotel or townhomes on the flex parcel. Ms. Repholz said she would rather see a hotel then the purchase townhomes.
Ms. Teetsov shared she is excited about the development. It is a development that young people would love to move to when moving out of Chicago. The hotel is an exciting use next to Three Oaks Recreation Area and the walkable amenities.
Mr. Greenman shared he had no comments at this time.
Ms. Cowlin reviewed the elements of the plan that create a sense of place. It is a combination of streetscaping, architecture and design. The proposed streetscape plan was created by the City’s consultant, Teska Associates. It is a starting point to illustrate the level of detail for pavers, lighting, community wayfinding signs and street furniture.
Mr. Burney requested the streetscape plan be moved in the recommended conditions of approval to the end and add that the development team will continue to work with staff on the plan.
Ms. Teetsov stated it is great to tie in natural places and a restroom in that gathering area would make it accessible to the public.
Ms. Repholz thinks the development needs to be consistent with natural materials and colors, avoid looking like Epcot, do not do fake pavers or crazy colors.
Mr. Atkinson likes it.
Mr. Gronow asked if they can incorporate additional conditions.
Mr. Greenman stated this is an opportunity to be natural compared to manmade, the essence we are trying to capture is complementary to Three Oaks Recreation Area’s natural elements so bring that out to this development. The proximity to Three Oaks Recreation Area is a unique opportunity. Creating a combination of community and take advantage of Three Oaks Recreation Area. There needs to be an outdoor public bathroom.
Ms. Cowlin reviewed the proposed zoning and land uses.
The development team had concerns about limiting non-sales tax generating businesses in the commercial area. The stated it could lead to vacancies in the future.
The Commission had no questions on the zoning and directed the development team to work with staff on the restrictions on the land uses.
Ms. Cowlin reviewed the proposed architecture of the residential and commercial areas, highlighting the grocery user’s proposed elevations.
Mr. Greenman started with asking what elements within the architecture reflect its name and its community to Three Oaks Recreation Area. There is an opportunity to demonstrate that more in the architecture.
Mr. Atkinson made the statement that the architecture for the residential area is coastal – relaxed.
Ms. Repholz added it seems nautical. Ms. Teetsov shared she likes the dark trim and not being so blue or all similar to the ones we have seen recently.
Mr. Atkinson added they could add an anchor or water artistic feature.
Mr. Gronow shared the buildings at Three Oaks Recreation Area are nature not water, architecture being presented is very complimentary to those buildings at Three Oaks Recreation Area. Maybe there should be more in streetscapes to accomplish this not the architecture. The architecture is on track.
Mr. Jouron likes the townhouses, his personal preference is individual little houses and looks more cozy and like a neighbor.
Ms. Cowlin summarized the sign requests. The development team stated they would like to keep the proposed 30-foot freestanding sign.
Mr. Jouron shared the background on monument signs. Keep the sign near the 18 feet.
Ms. Repholz said she would allow it to go bigger and Mr. Gronow said he would not want it taller than it currently is at 25 feet.
Mr. Greenman summarized the Commissions comments and reviewed the recommended conditions of approval that were brought up by the development team.
Ms. Repholz made a motion to approve the rezoning to B-4, Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat of Subdivision with the following recommended conditions:
1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:
| A. Application (Fiduciary and Hamilton Partners, dated 12/13/2021)
B. Preliminary Plat of Subdivision (Manhard Consulting, dated 12/17/2021) C. Preliminary Master Site Plan (Manhard Consulting, dated 12/17/2021, revised 03/08/2022) D. PUD Submission - Architecture/Colored Renderings (ag Architecture, dated 03/09/2022) E. Preliminary Seasons Elevations (ag Architecture, dated 03/09/2022) F. Crystal Lake Monument Letters (ag Architecture, dated 12/23/2021) G. Commercial Pattern Book (ag Architecture, received 03/29/2022) H. Preliminary Sign Plan (ag Architecture, dated 12/23/2021) I. Grocery User Elevations (NORR, dated 03/28/2022) J. Preliminary Engineering Infrastructure Plan (Manhard Consulting, dated 12/17/2021, revised 03/08/2021) K. Preliminary Engineering Plan Multi-Family (Manhard Consulting dated 12/17/2021, revised 03/08/2021) L. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (Manhard Consulting, dated 12/17/2021, revised 03/08/2022) M. Preliminary Landscape Plan (Manhard Consulting, dated 12/17/2021) N. Traffic Study (Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc., dated 02/11/2022) O. Streetscape Plan (Teska Associates, dated 03/21/2022) | |
| 2. Landscape Plan: | |
B. Provide the UDO requirement for landscaping around freestanding signs.
C. Provide quantities, health and species of the existing trees on the property to be removed.
D. Work with staff on the placement of street trees along the existing Three Oaks Recreation Area Drives.
E. Work to preserve the existing tree line along the east property line and Three Oaks Recreation Area Drive to screen the rear of the grocery user.
3. Commercial Area Design Standards:
A. Stone/brick must make up 70% of the exterior building material. Stone materials must be complementary to the cinder limestone stone or glacier gray brick of the residential area.
B. Wood tone material must make up 20% of the exterior building material.
C. Window glazing must make up at least 10% of the exterior building material.
D. Window and storefront window trim must be a dark color in the commercial area.
E. Roofing materials should be an architectural shingle or other quality material to complement the facades, if a flat roof is not utilized.
F. Building heights should vary, similar to examples shown in the commercial pattern book.
G. All mechanical roof or ground-mounted equipment, trash receptacles, and utility equipment must be screen with landscaping or building-matching architectural enclosures.
4. Grocery User Architecture:
A. The knee wall under the windows must be constructed of brick or stone.
B. Work with staff to break up the large architectural panel area on the north and west elevations with simulated wood panels enhanced natural materials as a portion. (Revised by PZC)
C. Break up the expansive brick on the west elevation face brick with either a shoulder course, band of a different brick color or columns to create a shadow line.
5. The Seasons Architecture:
A. Utilize shake siding instead of board and batten on one additional model of the 20-unit building to break up the monotony for a total of two models utilizing shake siding.
6. Signage:
A. Work with staff on a final design of the development monument signs that will flank the entrance to the development at Water’s Edge Boulevard and the east/west drive aisle. The monuments should be primarily an architectural feature with accompanying signage.
B. Work with staff to determine the final locations of the kiosk/directories throughout the development.
C. The multi-tenant commercial sign can be no greater than 18 feet in height.
7. Site Plan:
A. Fill any gaps in the sidewalk connections within the development boundary, such as the sidewalk along Route 14, along the north property line of the grocery store and connecting the townhomes to the multi-use path near the entrance to Three Oaks Recreation Area.
B. Allow for an additional gathering space between the 11-unit residential building and the southern commercial building. This could be an opportunity for outdoor seating or a small plaza.
8. Plat of Subdivision:
A. Provide the appropriate plats for the transfer of ownership of property between the City and Developer.
B. Work with staff to finalize easement locations for municipal utilities and resolve any conflicts between easements and landscaping.
9. Provide a photometric and lighting plan for Final Planned Unit Development that complies with the lighting requirements of the UDO.
10. Work with staff to determine a final decorative street light standard for the lighting along Water’s Edge and throughout the development. The light standard should be black and complement the existing lights in Three Oaks Recreation Area.
11. Provide a copy of Covenant, Codes and Restrictions for the City’s review and approval.
12. The internal drive aisles within The Seasons shall be posted with “No Parking” signs.
13. Exhibit A includes a list of allowable and prohibited uses for the development area.
14. Traffic Impact Study/Roadway Improvements.
A. Installation of a new traffic signal at Liberty Road and Main Street which will be interconnected with the existing traffic signal at Route 14 and Main Street.
B. Construct a new northbound right turn lane at Water’s Edge Boulevard and Route 14.
C. Prohibit left turns out onto westbound Route 14 from Liberty Road.
D. Construct a separate southbound right turn lane from Water’s Edge Boulevard to Three Oaks Recreation Drive.
E. Submit the traffic study to IDOT for review prior to application for Final PUD.
15. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development, Public Works, Police and Fire Rescue Departments, as well as the City’s stormwater consultant, Christopher B. Burke Engineering.
| 16. Work with staff to finalize the Streetscape Plan (Teska Associates, dated 03/21/2022). (Revised by PZC) |
REPORT FROM PLANNING
Ms. Cowlin summarized the items that were approved by City Council and noted the items scheduled for the next PZC meeting, April 20, 2022.
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION
There were no comments from the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Jouron made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 a.m.
https://ecode360.com/documents/CR2206/public/656716613.pdf
Alerts Sign-up