McLean County Times

Town of Normal Planning Commission met Sept. 5.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present:

Bob Broad, Ben Matthews, Brad Ropp, Jessica Woods, Mike Matejka

Members Absent:

Alicia Wodika, R.C. McBride

Others Present:

Director of Inspections Greg Troemel, Town Planner Mercy Davison, Office Associate Hannah Neal, Deputy Corporation Council Jason Querciagrossa

Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM by Vice Chairman, Mr. Matejka. Approval of Minutes:

Ms. Woods moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2024. Mr. Ropp seconded the motion and the minutes were approved.

Public Hearing:

a. 24-09-07-PC: Zoning Map Amendment, 601 ½ N. Main St.

Ms. Davison provided a summery of the proposal. This property is on the west side of Main St., not far from University High School. Directly south of the property are the Fireside Condos and directly north is a single-family property. There are other single-family homes nearby as well. To the west of the property is a building belonging to Illinois State University, which is currently used for storage and distribution. Gregory Street was noted as the nearest intersection. There is also multifamily zoning to the southeast.

Historically, the properties on the west side of main street were zoned single family. In the late 1960’s, the property owners petitioned to rezone the land at the northwest corner of Main and Gregory to multifamily. The Fireside Condos were built in the late 1970’s, which is around the time that the properties on the west side of main were rezoned back to single family. The Fireside Condos are now considered to be legal nonconforming. The applicant would like to have the property at 601 ½ N. Main rezoned from R-1B to R-3A, which is a form of multifamily zoning.

Staff recommends approval and believes the property meets the necessary provisions of the code that dictate how one would rezone property. It is adjacent to a multifamily use, and it is on a five-lane state highway, where it is uncommon to build new single-family homes. Ms. Davison noted that the single-family homes in the area were built decades ago. She went on to say that it is adjacent to an institutional use.

Ms. Davison also felt it important to mention that the property to the south, Fireside Condos, is legal nonconforming multifamily. This means that if the property is damaged to a certain degree, it would need to come into compliance with current zoning, and a multifamily structure could not be rebuilt. Ms. Davison explained if that were to occur, the Town would very likely rezone the Fireside Condos property to R-3A to permit its reconstruction or rehabilitation.

Ms. Davison concluded by stating that the neighborhood is a busy area, and the hardship of developing the property as single family outweighs the hardship that would be caused by rezoning the land as multifamily.

At this time, Mr. Matejka asked if the Commission had any questions.

Mr. Broad asked Ms. Davison if there would be any anticipated impact on the single-family property to the north of the lot and wondered if the property owner had been spoken to.

Ms. Davison said that that owner had been contacted and was present. The way the code is written, there are development standards, such as green space, landscaping, setbacks, etc. When an R-3A property is next to R-1, those standards are stricter. No site plan has been presented at this time.

Mr. Matejka opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was present for the applicant.

Ms. Elizabeth Megli, an Attorney of Livingston Law Firm, located at 115 W Jefferson Ste 400, Bloomington, IL 61701, was sworn in and stated that she was there on behalf of the applicant.

Ms. Megli believes that the information that had been provided was accurate, but on behalf of the applicant, she wanted to review a few particular items.

She went on to say that the property had never been developed. She stated that her client has owned the property since 2008 and has made prior attempts at variances and rezoning as well as several attempts to sell. On each occasion, while there was some interest, the zoning classification kept sales from going through. There were also attempts to develop the property as a single-family home, however lenders also identified the fact that this would not be the best use for the property and financing was unavailable. The applicant has been in a difficult position trying to determine how to utilize the property and feels that an undeveloped property is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the town. Additionally, Ms. Megli stated that this property is clearly in a transitional neighborhood. Since the property was purchased, there has been a greater presence of the university, and there is a strong indication that the College of Engineering will be coming in the near future to the building adjacent to the west. All factors in their opinion suggest that rezoning the property to multifamily would be more suitable.

At this time Ms. Megli stated that she would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Broad asked Ms. Megli to clarify the zoning of the property in 2008 when the property was purchased.

Ms. Megli said it was zoned R-1B.

Mr. Broad asked if the applicant had any particular reason to suspect that either the property would be able to be developed as single family or could be rezoned. He asked if there any kind of agreement or offer made to that effect.

Ms. Megli said there was no agreement, and that her client had petitioned for the rezoning in the past. The applicant was hoping to develop it as single family, and when that wasn’t possible, he had hoped to rezone given that the neighborhood was in transition. Overall, developing it as single family would not be economical.

Mr. Matejka asked if anyone else would like to speak about the property. Jennifer Sicks of 603 N. Main approached and was sworn in.

603 N Main is the neighboring property to the north of 601 ½ N Main. Ms. Sicks’ parents purchased 603 N Main in 1967. It has been her family home for 57 years. It was passed on to Jennifer in 2017. She stated that her mother was a previously involved in a Town of Normal Planning Commission hearing relating to previous development attempts, and that Ms. Sicks herself is an Urban Development Planner. She also said that she had some involvement in the creation of the Town of Normal Comprehensive Plan and understands the importance of providing denser housing in the Bloomington-Normal area. She went on to say that while she had not had time to do so yet, that she would be submitting a FOIA request to the Town asking to see similar instances where zoning has changed to R-3A with this many neighboring R-1 parcels nearby.

She disagreed with some of the comments made in the report. She stated that she did not feel that the neighborhood was in transition and has been relatively stable for as long as she’d been there. The only exception to this in the last 40 years had been the development of the Fireside Condos. She added that the John Greene building to the west has cut the neighborhood off from all ISU activities and does not feel that the addition of the possible engineering building will change anything.

She stated that many of the residents present were likely there due to concern about issues that were raised by the applicant in the previous attempt to rezone in 2010. She recalled that at the time the Planning Commission had voted against the proposal to rezone. It then went before City Council and also did not pass.

In regard to the applicant’s previous attempts to sell, Ms. Sicks stated that she and the Fireside Condos had attempted to purchase the property from the applicant. There was never any indication that the applicant was interested in this proposal.

In her discussions with Staff, she learned that the maximum number of units possible would be 7, and she felt that the land was too small to support that amount of housing.

Overall, she urged the Planning Commission to provide the neighboring properties time to do some research on what zoning would be suitable for the parcel, as well as the potential impacts on the zoning changing to R-3A.

Mr. Broad stated that there is a general urgent need for denser housing in the community. As there are many rules in place when changing the density of housing on a parcel, Mr. Broad wanted to know if Ms. Sicks felt as if she and her neighbors were not being protected with those rules.

Ms. Sicks said she did not. She said she understood the need for denser housing, and would be willing to see a proposal, but ultimately felt that 7 units on the property would be excessive and inconsiderate of the neighboring properties. She reiterated that she would like more time to assess what possible issues would arise with rezoning the property.

At this time Mr. Matejka reiterated that this proposal was only for rezoning and the Planning Commission had not been tasked with reviewing a site plan. If the zoning were to be approved, the site plan would be discussed at a different time.

Ms. Davison added that if the property were rezoned, the owner would need to subdivide the property. She also said that there would not be a site plan requirement, as long as the plan met code.

Ms. Sicks asked Ms. Davison to confirm that 7 units would be the maximum number, and Ms. Davison said that was correct.

Mr. Matejka asked if there was anyone else present that wished to speak.

Mr. Porter, an Attorney from Costigan and Wollrab, located at 308 E Washington St, Bloomington IL 61701, approached and was sworn in. He then stated that he was there to represent multiple residents of the Fireside Condos. He also added that he is on the Normal Historical Preservation Commission.

He said with respect to what the Commission has to consider, he had a few issues with the staff development, one issue being the suitability of development for this property as currently zoned. Reference was made that this had not been the first attempt to amend the zoning classification for this property. There was a previous attempt made in 2013, and both the Planning Commission and the Council did not approve the rezoning. After reviewing the minutes for both of these meetings, he noted that a lot of the rationale was the property owner’s attempt to market the property and sell it and that he marketing forces were telling the owner the land needed to be rezoned. The property was purchased for $25,000 in 2008. In 2012, it was listed for sale at $50,000, which is more than the assessed value of the property today. According to Mr. Porter, the attempt to inflate the market value of the property by that margin would go a long way in explaining why the property has sat vacant. There have been no changes to this situation since the last attempt to rezone in 2013. The neighboring properties have maintained single family residential zoning, and the legal nonconforming property to the south has not changed. He referenced the petitioner’s report, which mentioned the potential student housing need for the possible engineering college coming to campus. He also addressed the comparison that had been drawn between the current zoning for Fireside Condos and the proposed zoning for 601 ½ N Main. Fireside is a multifamily development, but the units are owner occupied. There are also concerns about parking on a newly zoned multifamily site, as well as ingress and egress off of N Main. Fireside has multiple points of ingress and egress, where as this property would not. There are also potential noise concerns that are problematic to the residents at Fireside. Mr. Porter stated that for these reasons, he felt that the previous attempts at rezoning were properly denied and reiterated that nothing has changed since then to justify a rezoning.

He closed by stating the factor set forth in 1512-2(C) of the Municipal Code does not uniformly lend itself to approving this rezoning amendment petition.

Mr. Matejka asked if there were any questions for Mr. Porter from the Commission.

Ms. Woods asked for confirmation that the Fireside Condos were owner occupied, and that there were no renters or students living there.

Mr. Porter said that was correct, the condo’s bylaws prohibit renters.

Ms. Woods also asked for confirmation that Ms. Sicks did in fact state interest in purchasing the property previously.

Mr. Porter said that his understanding was that each party was asked to pay $50,000, and that the lot was not worth that amount of money.

Ms. Woods asked if there was still interest in purchasing the property from the previous party.

Mr. Porter said that would certainly be possible, but those conversations had not happened to his knowledge.

Ms. Sicks at this time stated that she had been approached somewhat recently, but the price was too high and was nonnegotiable.

Mr. Querciagrossa took this time to remind the Planning Commission that the decision for this agenda item needs to be based on the zoning factors.

Mr. Matejka asked if there were any other members of the audience that would like to speak on this issue.

Janice Miller of 601 N Main, Unit 2S was sworn in. She said that in one of her interactions with the applicant, he had made the comment when asked about sewer and parking that he would use the back portion of the property at 601 N Main. She added that there is a concrete median that goes past 601 N Main and 603 N Main. The traffic is already congested in the area, and Ms. Miller felt that this addition would make the congestion worse. She also said that it was her understanding that the College of Engineering would no longer be going in the proposed location. She reiterated that no renting was allowed per the Fireside Condos bylaws. She also disagreed with the earlier comment that the neighborhood was in transition. Overall, she felt like the staff analysis was not an accurate assessment of the neighborhood.

Mr. Matejka asked if anyone else wished to speak and reminded everyone that the Commission was only voting on the zoning of the property.

Sandy Zimmerman of 601 N Main, Unit 6S was sworn in and stated her concerns about the current traffic and that adding another multiunit building would only increase the issues. She echoed Ms. Millers concerns about parking.

At this time Ms. Megli asked if she would be able to respond on behalf of the applicant to some of the issues that had been discussed.

Ms. Megli said that this application was just to rezone and that the number of individuals who have spoken have just raised concerns about possible site plans and interactions with the individual. The issues with the application are what needs to be considered. They will work with staff on developing the property.

Mr. Ropp asked if there were potential next steps if the zoning didn’t pass. Ms. Megli had been given no indication as to what those plans would be.

Mr. Matejka called the public portion closed.

Mr. Ropp moved to adopt the findings and recommendations as proposed by staff. Mr. Broad seconded.

Mr. Matejka asked if there were any comments from staff.

Ms. Woods said that she understood the applicant’s desire to develop the property and noted that it would be in the best interest of the Town. However, given that several people had mentioned an interest in potentially buying the property, she is hesitant to vote in favor of the rezoning until that possibility had been fully explored. Furthermore, if the Town were to pass the rezoning of the property at this time, there would be no guarantee that the land would be developed in a way that was cohesive with the neighbors.

Mr. Broad said that he also felt the that the decision was difficult. He appreciates the guidance of the Town’s Attorney. While he personally felt that it would be in the best interest of all parties involved for the applicant to sell the parcel to the neighboring properties, the Planning Commission had only been tasked with deciding whether or not the current zoning was appropriate. He also stated that he would have preferred more information on the feelings of the neighboring properties in the staff report.

Mr. Ropp agreed with Ms. Woods and Mr. Broad. He acknowledged that it is not uncommon to have multifamily next to a single family. He struggles with knowing that in this particular case knowing that it would impact the neighbors negatively. He had asked if there was any inclination that the applicant would consider selling to the neighbors that had expressed interest previously in the evening. However, if the decision comes down to interpreting the code, he said it would be a pretty straightforward decision.

Ms. Davison took a moment to weigh in on some comments from the perspective of the staff. The code very clearly states that the municipal code prohibits discrimination against students. The zoning code does not discuss who can and cannot live in any given unit. The Town cannot require a specific kind of occupancy on a property. Ms. Davison noted that there are renters all over the community, in single family zoning districts as well as multifamily, and that as a community we do not want to put forth the message that we do not want renters.

Ms. Davison further stated that in regard to the staff report, if it weren’t for Fireside Condos already being zoned as R-3A, this report would be very different. The fact that they are owner occupied is not relevant when it comes to the code. It is the Staff’s opinion that if the existing R 3A property is not having a negative impact on the neighborhood, it is the Staff's opinion that there is already effectively R-3A next to R-1 zoning. And it is believed that the code provisions for development would be adequately protective of the surrounding properties if development is pursued.

Mr. Matejka said that if he was understanding what Ms. Davison was saying, the decision should be based on consistency of zoning status with the joining properties, given that we already have single family and nonconforming multifamily.

Ms. Davison said that was correct, and that there are parts of town where multifamily exists near single family. And in some of those circumstances, as previously stated, if the multifamily unit were to burn down or be damaged beyond repair, it is likely that a multifamily structure would not be able to be rebuilt. However, if something happened to Fireside Condos, being on a state highway, and they wanted to rezone, it is likely that the Town would allow it.

Ms. Woods asked if Mercy recalled how many times this property had come up to be rezoned.

Ms. Davison said that it came up once for rezoning and once for a zoning variance. It was rejected both times.

Ms. Woods asked what had changed between the previous rejections and today.

Ms. Davison said that the housing situation has changed, there is a stronger need for more density where it is appropriate. There has also been less desire from residents to buy a single family detached home. She also mentioned the cost of building anything is much different than 2013 when the zoning was last looked at for this property. Overall, staff needs to prioritize denser housing where it is appropriate, and Staff believes that it would be appropriate here.

Mr. Broad asked if Council would ultimately make the decision.

Ms. Davison said that was correct.

Mr. Broad then asked that if Council approves and the property owner proceeds with a site plan, would the code require the Town to review the site plan.

Ms. Davison said that as long as the proposed site plan meets code, it would not need to go through a public process for a site plan. Currently, the process is that the applicants submit the site plan to the Inspections and Planning departments, and those departments would review them to ensure that they meet code.

Mr. Broad asked if the staff approves of the plan, but others do not, how would they go about objecting.

Ms. Davison said the code is very clear about most of the rules in regard to setbacks, landscaping, height restrictions etc.

Mr. Troemel added that it either meets code or it doesn’t.

At this time, Mr. Matejka called for a vote.

All in favor: Mr. Broad, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Ropp

Opposed: Mr. Matejka, Ms. Woods.

The motion carried 3 to 2.

b. Three items pertaining to the North End of Trails on Sunset Lake, a Subdivision North and East of the Intersection of Airport and Ft Jesse (PIN 15-19-300-019) I. 24-09-08-PC: Amended Annexation Agreement with a Land Use Matter Pertaining to a Zoning Map Amendment, Area West of Canyon Creek Road Extended

II. 24-09-09-PC: Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan, Area West of Canyon Creek Road Extended

III. 24-09-10-PC: Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plan, Area East of Canyon Creek Road Extended

To simplify the agenda item, Ms. Davison reviewed the staff report on all items at this time. The Sunset Lakes property has been on the Town’s radar to develop since its annexation was approved in 2007. Ms. Davison presented the original plan from 2007. At the time the majority of the land was intended to develop as large lots with single family detached homes. The area in the northwest part of the subdivision included a variety of zoning, such as R2, R-1B, and possibly B-1 zoning. The annexation agreement had a lot of flexibility. In 2010 there was an amendment to the plan, which is when it became a cul-de-sac with attached housing east of Canyon Creek, with an additional cul-de-sac west of Canyon Creek with attached housing. Then the plan changed in the northwest area to be detached single family homes with smaller lots than others in the neighborhood. In 2021 there was another amendment in pertaining to the south end of the development, which proposed additional large lots and some R-2 zoning by Fort Jesse. In 2022, they returned to amend the cul-de-sac in the northeast quadrant to be single family detached homes, which would have had 25-foot rear yard setbacks.

Currently there is a plan to amend the zoning in the northwest area to add some R-2 Zoning. This plan would leave a few of the single family lots detached single family as is but would add in attached single family housing on the north and west sides. The proposed change also includes the northeast corner of the subdivision, where the applicant proposes to return to attached single family houses on the cul-de-sac.

In regard to the zoning, Staff would recommend approval based on the code standards. It is very common to have R-2 zoning adjacent to R-1B and R-1A zoning. The increased density would not have a significant impact on utilities or the transportation system. It would also serve the Town’s need to develop denser housing.

Ms. Davison went on to show the preliminary subdivision plan. If the zoning were approved to R-2, the request will then be to change the lot layout to properties with attached single-family homes. This will change the lot layout from 26 to 42. On the other side of Canyon Creek, these properties would go from 16 to 34. Previous plans were for 38 units. This plan is very similar to the plan approved several years ago. The rear yard setbacks will be 25 feet. The street would also become a little narrower but that is not uncommon for the neighborhood. The cul-de-sac on the east side will require variances for being too long and containing too many units. However, since that has been the case since the annexation agreement was approved, staff has no issues approving.

Mr. Ropp stated that he was supportive of proposed changes. He did ask if the fire department had looked at the plans for the cul-de-sac given that the road would be narrower and may cause turn-around issues in the event of an emergency.

Ms. Davison said there is a requirement that there is only parking permitted on one side. She added that yes, both the fire department and the engineering department have reviewed the plans.

At this time, Mr. Matejka opened up the meeting to the public and asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of the proposal.

B.J. Armstrong, 1236 E. Jefferson, Bloomington IL, was sworn in and stated that he was one of the developers on the project. He stated that his goal was to increase the housing density along Airport and Shephard Road. It is suitable for the current market and suits the Town’s needs. The goal is to keep the green space and to keep the neighborhood cohesive. On the northeast corner of the property, they are moving back towards the attached housing that the property originally had. The reason they had not moved forward with developing the property as detached single family was due to some code changes that would make developing the property more expensive. The market also is currently flooded with detached single family, and the need for the proposed kind of attached housing is higher.

Mr. Matejka asked if anyone else was present to speak in favor of the development with no response. He then asked if anyone was present to speak against the proposal.

Joshua Crowder of 3725 Yellowstone Dr, Normal IL 61761 approached and was sworn in. Mr. Crowder went on to state that he was an active member of the community as well as a member of the neighborhood’s HOA. He said that the Trails of Sunset Lake was turned over to the homeowner's association from the developers back in 2020. At the time there were 59 homes in the community, and there are now 71. There have been three stages of the development – one involving Yellowstone, one along the front end of Como, and then one along the Verandas, which is the area on the west side that is being proposed. When these three properties were turned over in 2020, they were combined into one HOA. The declaration of the covenants and restrictions for the Verandas was officially recorded on January 8, 2014. In that declaration there are home square footage requirements, setback lines, and other restrictions to how those homes must be built. The homeowner’s association believes that the changes being proposed do not comply with their covenant. The residents purchased and built their homes based on these covenants, often paying a premium to alter housing with assurance to what the remaining built homes would look like. The HOA has the responsibility to enforce these covenants. They have received numerous comments and complaints on this proposal and believe the proposed changes could not meet the restrictions of their covenant. There is also no guarantee that the proposed changes on the east side would meet the requirements of the covenant. The HOA overall would like to ask the Planning Commission to deny the proposal on behalf of their residents.

Mr. Matejka responded with saying that homeowner covenants do not impact Town requirements.

Ms. Davison confirmed that was correct – code analysis does not factor in private covenants, nor does the Town enforce them. However, the information about the HOA is worth hearing, and Ms. Davison advised that the Commission continue to evaluate the situation as they normally would.

Mr. Ropp asked Mr. Armstrong if there were intentions for the properties on sheet 3 to have its own covenants.

Mr. Armstrong said that his understanding is that the covenants only apply to the lots that have been developed. Undeveloped lots would not be subject to existing covenants, and developers would create covenants as the lots are developed. That being said, those covenants could be different, but their goal is to be in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood The covenants that are developed would be in keeping with the surrounding HOA to the best of their ability. He added that he does feel that the proposal being discussed would be the best use of the land.

Mr. Matejka asked if any other residents wished to speak.

Mark Sperry, 754 Canyon Creek Rd, was sworn in. He lives in an older development in the neighborhood. He stated that he was also on the board for the HOA and had several issues with the proposal. The HOA has their own insurance on the lake; they take care of all mowing and landscaping and have worked hard on enforcing the covenants. Doing so has occasionally rubbed the neighbors wrong, but the point is that they work very hard to keep up the value of the neighborhood. Recently, they had a neighborhood discussion involving some of the residents on Como. Como was previously zoned for multifamily and has since been changed to single family. During the time that it had been zoned multifamily, no one was actually living there. Since then, the families that have moved into the single-family homes have expressed that they are unhappy with the proposal.

Mr. Sperry said that it was his understanding that Mr. Armstrong had been working with the town around August 1st. The signs went up a short time prior to the meeting, and especially coming off of a three-day weekend, a lot of families had not had proper notice to process the proposal. Mr. Sperry feels that Mr. Armstrong should have met with the neighborhood and the HOA prior to moving forward.

Mr. Matejka thanked Mr. Sperry for his comments and asked if anyone else would like to speak.

Mr. Andrew Keighin of 3610 Como Ct was sworn in. He said that overall, the community feels like there is a lack of communication. They feel as if they proposal has moved so quickly that they have not had time to act. He also expressed concerns about the privacy of his family if the plans were to move forward. The proposal would add 5 separate lots behind him, whereas now there are only 2. He would like to request that the Council would look into any other circumstance within the Town where that many properties butt up against an R-1A single family home. He himself has looked on McGis and could not find any. He is not opposed to look at options and alternatives to make everyone happy; they would just like to at least be given the opportunity.

Mr. Matejka asked if Ms. Davison could speak on Mr. Keighin’s concern about the number of properties that would border his if the proposal were to pass.

Ms. Davison pointed out that Mr. Keighin’s property line was unusually long, which would explain why he was unable to find other situations of this occurring.

Mr. Keighin said that his overall point was he felt that this would be damaging to his property value. He feels that the neighborhood could get finished out the way it was originally planned, with single family homes.

Mr. Matejka asked if anyone else was present that wished to speak.

Mr. Nathan Mangold of 3606 Como Ct approached and echoed Mr. Keighin’s concerns about home values decreasing. When they built their homes, they had no anticipation that this would be proposed. This proposal would double the number of homes in the subdivision overall which would completely change the neighborhood. He and other neighbors feel that if the street on the west side were to have been finished, those houses would have sold. He also said that he disagrees with the analysis comparing their neighborhood to the Vinyards in the staff report.

Furthermore, he and his neighbors have concerns with increasing traffic. Finally, he mentioned that his current rear yard setback is 40 ft. Changing it to 25 ft would cause issues with privacy.

Mr. Dwayne Whitlow of 809 Table Rock circle also approached. He stated that he and his wife moved to the neighborhood in November of 2023. When they bought the house, they carefully looked at the neighborhood plans, and at the time, the proposed plan was a big factor in purchasing their home. Had they known that this proposal was on the horizon, they would not have bought their house. He added that a few weeks back, someone had left a note in his mailbox, asking to buy his house. He felt that this action speaks to the need of adding more single-family housing in the area, and agrees that if they were to be built, they would sell quickly.

At this time Mr. Greg Church of 806 Weatherby Way was sworn in. He had bought his home in 2020. At the time on the northwest side of Tablerock and Weatherby Way, there were 6 empty lots. In 2022, 6 single family homes were built and were purchased very quickly. He agreed with previous statements that there was a need in the market for single family housing.

Finally, Ron Kieser of 3742 Yellowstone was sworn in. He wanted to know specifically how the covenants could be ignored by the Planning Commission when making a decision. It clearly says that the neighborhood cannot be subdivided unless 75% of the neighborhood population agrees.

Mr. Matejka reiterated that covenants are not made by the Town and, therefore, the Town could not enforce them.

Ms. Davison added that we would not take this to Council if there were some kind of active legal dispute. The Planning Commission was here to evaluate whether or not the proposal met Town Code.

Mr. Kieser said that it would lead to legal expenses on both sides, which would not be ideal.

Ms. Davison said that if there were a recommendation tonight, then it would be on the Town Council’s agenda on October 7th.

Mr. Matejka asked Mr. Armstrong if he would be willing to meet with the HOA and the neighbors prior to the October meeting.

Mr. Armstrong said that he would definitely like to have that conversation. He agreed that there would be no reason to create a legal dispute. He did add that construction was bound a little bit by weather. Delaying 30 days would push construction back to at least the spring given that the winter weather is approaching.

Mr. Matejka said that they would still possibly build in October; it would just be on the agenda for the second Town Council meeting in October instead of the first.

Given that information, Mr. Armstrong said that he would be fine postponing. Mr. Matejka asked for a motion.

Ms. Woods moved to postpone the decision on all business concerning Trails on Sunset Lake until the October Planning Commission meeting, and Mr. Ropp seconded.

Mr. Matejka called for a vote:

All in favor: 4

Opposed: 0

The motion passed.

c. 24-09-11-PC: Preliminary Subdivision Plan, West of Rivian Motorway (PINs 13-26- 400-004, 13-26-400-004, 13-26-300-005, 13-27-200-011)

Ms. Davison reviewed the summary. Rivian is proposing a preliminary subdivision plan to develop directly west of Rivian’s existing property. They are proposing to develop two lots and leave two undeveloped outlots. There would be nothing changing with the zoning. The purpose of the plan would be to show there are adequate utilities, that the roads would remain functional, and that the lots are appropriately sized. There will be a future process when Rivian has a site plan for the lots.

Mr. Matejka asked if there were any questions for staff.

Mr. Ropp asked for clarification that the term “subdivision” did not imply that the land would be used residentially.

Ms. Davison said no, that the term subdivision was meant to mean divided land, and that it would remain industrial.

Mr. Ropp asked if they were planning on developing right away.

Ms. Davison said a site plan would be required, and nothing has yet been filed. However, Ms. Davison noted that development is expected in the near term.

Mr. Matejka opened the meeting to the public.

Ms. Karley Berard, 100 N. Rivian Motorway, a Rivian construction manager, and Mr. Brad Hovanec with Cage Engineering, 2200 Cabot Drive, Suite 325, Lisle, IL, offered to answer any questions.

Ms. Nancy Boitnott of 9487 E 1950 North Rd, Bloomington, was sworn in and asked if the Town of Normal would be annexing land for the nearby road and extending the Town out the point of the new construction.

Ms. Davison said the area she was referring to had already been annexed.

Ms. Boitnott asked about the right of way for the property to the immediate south of the new road.

Ms. Davison said that it had not been annexed as of now, and there were no intentions to annex it in the near future.

Ms. Boitnott asked if any potential right of way would be on the Normal side of the road.

Ms. Davison said that we already have what we would need concerning the right of way adjacent to Rivian.

Mr. Ryan Otto, the Town’s Director of Engineering clarified that the right of way would be on the south side of the site. The plan calls for College Avenue to be extended to the west off of Rivian Motorway. A portion of that is already part of Rivian Motorway, and a portion is part of a property to the south that is not annexed. At such a time if that’s needed, it would have to be purchased.

Ms. Boitnott asked about the right of way width.

Mr. Otto said that, overall, it would be 130 feet, and it is possible to develop it in stages. Ms. Boitnott asked who would be in charge of the infrastructure.

Mr. Otto said that the developer would be in charge of building the infrastructure. Mr. Matejka asked if anyone else wished to speak.

Mr. Robert Allen of 15330 N. 975 East Rd, directly west of Rivian, was sworn in and wanted to confirm that Rivian would not be proposing a zoning change on the 60 acres on the far west end of the property.

Mr. Matejka said no, there was a hearing about two years ago to maintain the agricultural zoning of that property.

David Kidd of 15218 N. 975 East Road approached and asked if there would be any kind of green space put in to help deter the light and noise coming from the Rivian plant with this expansion.

Ms. Davison said there is no precise code requirement, but there was talk from Rivian a few years back of adding in an evergreen screen.

Mr. Kidd said that he had brought up at the initial zoning meeting that he did not want to see wind turbines in the area, and then wind turbines were put in shortly after. He wanted to make sure that his concerns about the additional noise and light coming from Rivian were heard and considered.

Mr. Matejka suggest that he grab the business cards from the Rivian team members that were present and keep in touch on the issue as the project develops.

With no further comments, Mr. Matejka closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.

Mr. Matthews moved to adopt the findings and recommendations as proposed by staff, and Ms. Woods seconded.

Mr. Matejka called for a vote.

All in favor: 4

Opposed: 0

The motion was approved.

d. 24-09-12-PC: Amended Final Development Plan, The Park at Constitution Trail Centre PUD, 120 Mcknight.

Ms. Davison reviewed the staff report. The applicant is requesting a parking variance. The PUD was approved several years ago. They have had trouble when they go through financing processes and explain that that they have code-approved parking that they lease from the nearby AMC Theater. It would be helpful to have an approved variance showing that the parking provided on the site at 120 McKnight is sufficient, which requires a variance.

Mr. Troemel mentioned that they are still under a lease until 2026 for the 21 spaces with the theater. As they go through the financing and anticipate more financing in the future, this would help them with that process.

Mr. Ropp asked what would happen if they do not renew their lease after 2026.

Ms. Davison said that we do not actively track leases. We do require that the lease is for at least 5 years when the project is approved. The assumption is that it is incumbent upon them to take care of their tenants and find parking.

Mr. Matejka opened the discussion up for public comment with no response. At this time Mr. Matejka called for a motion.

Mr. Ropp moved to approve findings as proposed by staff, and Ms. Woods seconded. Mr. Matejka called for a vote.

All in favor: 4

Opposed: 0

The motion is approved.

With no other business, Mr. Matejka asked for a motion to adjourn.

Ms. Woods moved to adjourn, and Mr. Ropp seconded.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 PM

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5057