McLean County Times

Town of Normal Planning Commission met Oct. 10.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Members Present:

Bob Broad, Ben Matthews, Brad Ropp, Alicia Wodika, Mike Matejka, R.C. McBride 

Members Absent:

Jessica Woods

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 Chairman, Mr. McBride.

Approval of Minutes:

Mr. Matejka moved to approve minutes from September 5, 2024. Mr. Broad seconded with the condition that the last line on page 7 be amended. It had stated that the vote on the first agenda item had been 3-1 when it had actually been 3-2.

Public Hearing:

a. 24-10-13-PC: Site Plan, 751 Pine

At this time Mr. Broad excused himself due to owning property directly to the north of the property being discussed.

Ms. Davison reviewed the staff report. This property has been mostly gravel and used for light industrial purposes for the past few decades. The small building that is onsite has been there for about 20 years. The current owner recently bought the property. He uses the structure as an office for his contracting business and would like to develop the rest of the area as self-storage. The property is about three acres and is primarily surrounded by other M-1 zoning, as well as S-2 and C-1 PUD to the north. Ms. Davison reviewed some images of the property and noted that the new owner had put in a lot of effort to clean it up. She also showed the proposed site plan. Since the lot is located within 500 feet of Savanna Green neighborhood, which is a residential district, a site plan is required.

The site plan would include more green space along Pine Street and the east property line. The four buildings being proposed would be new self-storage facilities. The existing building would remain as it is. There were indications on the site plan for a future potential subdivision. The site is currently on a septic system. There is no sewer adjacent to the property, but the buildings being proposed would have no need for sewer or water. There would be two new access points to replace the current access point - one accessing the current building, and a second to the storage buildings with a gate for secured entry. There would be no parking adjacent to the storage units, but there is a hard surface driving space for ease of access to the storage buildings.

Overall, staff recommends approval.

Mr. McBride asked if Commissioners had any questions for Staff.

Mr. Ropp asked if the Town knew exactly where the septic system was in the event that the lot was subdivided in the future.

Ms. Davison said they did know where it was located, and it would remain on the same side of the property as the current structure if subdivided.

Mr. McBride asked the applicant to come forward.

Josh Banks of 2288 Holbrook Dr, Normal was sworn in and stated that he was the owner of the property being discussed.

David Brown of 505 N Main St., Bloomington IL accompanied him and was also sworn in, and added that he was with Lewis, Yockey & Brown Inc., Bloomington, IL.

Mr. Banks reiterated that what Ms. Davison said about the property was correct. He said the two bigger buildings on the property would be fully climate controlled and that he overall would like the presentation of the buildings to be nice and clean.

At this time Mr. McBride opened the discussion to the public.

With no response, he asked for a motion.

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

With no further questions, Mr. McBride called for a vote.

All in favor: 5

Opposed: 0

Abstaining: 1

The motion carried.

b. 24-10-14-PC: Site Plan, Northwest of Rivian Motorway and West College-Lots 1 and 2 in the NN2 WH Subdivision (PINs 13-26-400-002 &003)

Mr. McBride noted that agenda items 24-10-14-PC and 24-10-15-PC both pertained to Rivian and therefore would be reviewed together but voted on separately.

Ms. Davison gave an overview. There were two site plans being proposed for a portion of the area northwest of Rivian Motorway and West College. There was a previous item that came before the Planning Commission pertaining to this area that involved a preliminary subdivision plan in September. That plan was for two lots on the most eastern side to be developed into more manufacturing structures and the rest of the area would remain as outlots. No changes in zoning occurred during this proposal.

The current proposal is slightly different than what was shown during the review of the preliminary subdivision plan, but staff had determined that the differences were minor enough to not require an amendment. Instead of the area being divided into lots 1 and 2 they have been divided as lot 1, 2, and 3. There will be a large building on lot 1 as well as lot 3, with trailer storage parking on lot 2 in the middle. Down the road, they will still be merged into two lots.

The parking lots on the north and south ends of the property are for regular sized vehicles. There would be additional trailer parking on the east and west sides of the building. College Avenue would be extended west of Rivian Motorway, and it would run along the length of the south side of the property. There are traffic studies going on currently to observe the intersection of West College and Rivian Motorway. There is also a proposed access point that would potentially be on the north end of lot 1. Ultimately, IDOT would have to study and approve any access to Rivian Motorway.

Both structures would be large concrete buildings with neutral grey tones and numerous garage doors. Since these structures would be in M-2 zoning, they would not need to meet building appearance standards. The sign package for both projects is far less than what the site qualifies for. They are, however, proposing some free-standing directional signage, all of which would be bigger than what code permits.

Green space will be distributed on both sites. They were analyzed separately to meet compliance with the Town code. They will primarily be using native plants and trees. They will also be adding dry-bottom detention basins to assist with storm drainage management.

Regarding lighting, they will be up to code. The light levels will be below what code permits, and all light fixtures will be full cut off to reduce glare.

Overall, Staff recommend approval.

Ms. Davison reminded the Commission that this analysis applied to both agenda items pertaining to Rivian.

Mr. McBride asked the commission if there were questions for Staff with no response. Mr. McBride then asked the applicant to come forward.

Mr. Brad Hovanec with Cage Engineering, 2200 Cabot Dr, Suite 325, Lisle IL, was sworn in and stated that he was there on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions.

Mr. Broad brought up the original approval of zoning. He recalls there was some good discussion with the neighboring properties. He asked Mr. Hovanec if proper consideration was being made to those neighbors regarding lighting.

Mr. Hovanec said that at the zoning meeting they had discussed adding in some landscaping to provide more shielding of Rivian’s lighting for the neighboring properties, and that had been accounted for in the site plan.

At this time Mr. McBride asked if anyone from the public was present to ask any questions. Shawn Hoeft of 15679 N 900 E Rd was sworn in.

Ms. Hoeft stated that her and her husband live on a farm near the Rivian plant that had been in their family for at least five generations. Her husband farms adjacent to the area being developed. Ms. Hoeft said she appreciated the effort being made to accommodate the area for the extra lighting, but had concerns about the environmental impact where the warehouses were being built, as well as some concerns about noise pollution. She also asked about the area that was not zoned agriculture near the development and how it was going to be maintained. She was worried about weeds growing in the area if it was not maintained properly, which would possibly spread to their nearby farmland.

Ms. Davison said that at the time there were no official plans for the land Ms. Hoeft was referring to but that she would look into it and put it into the Town Council report.

Ms. Hoeft said that when it had originally come up to be rezoned, she appreciated Mr. Matejka's support on insisting that the back 60 acres maintain agricultural zoning. She went on to say that Mclean County has some of the richest farmland in the country. Rivian developing further was already taking some of that land out of production and felt that it could trickle into other areas, and that it could impact the quality of product that the farmers put out.

Mr. Matejka asked Staff if the weed nuisance ordinance, like other areas within the Town of Normal, would apply to area that Ms. Hoeft was referring to.

Ms. Davison that the Town has had similar instances in the past with large properties that develop slowly over time.

Mr. Troemel said that it would take some time for this development to be completed, and to the point that it is in town and in corporate limits, it is subject to the Town’s ordinances. If issues were to occur, the Town would work with the landowner to rectify the situation.

Mr. Matejka asked if it does become a nuisance, would it be handled any differently than if a Normal resident was not mowing their property.

Mr. Troemel said it would be different, as it is a lot of acreage, and given the amount of earth being moved during the Rivian project, it would not be uncommon for undeveloped portions of a site under ownership to be used for staging or storing materials. There would also need to be some permissions from the state regarding erosion control.

Mr. Matejka addressed Ms. Hoeft and told her not to hesitate to bring up any concerns she may have as this project develops further.

Mr. McBride asked if others were present that wished to speak.

Kelly Bowen of 16525 N 900 East Rd, Bloomington, IL was sworn in.

Mr. Bowen, the supervisor of Dry Grove Township, expressed concerns about the lighting as well as possible drainage issues that may occur as Rivian continues to expand. During the winter, Rivian is very bright. Even with the trees, he is worried that it is going to continue to get worse. Regarding the drainage, he had concerns with the concrete being added not allowing for proper drainage of rainwater. There is a creek nearby that he has seen flood during storms, and if the drainage is not properly handled it could cause a bigger issue.

Mr. McBride asked if either the Town or the representative for Rivian could address the concerns regarding drainage.

Mr. Hovanec stated that his team was following the Town of Normal code requirements for drainage. He also explained that one of the first steps of the new development would be to install three detention basins. Their purpose would be to catch the rainfall and then release it at a very slow pace, much slower than the pace of the average rainfall.

Mr. Broad acknowledged the Commission had heard the lighting and drainage issues addressed but had yet to hear any solution to the issue of noise pollution that had been brought up previously.

Mr. Hovanec said that he would not be able to speak to that issue but offered to take it back to his team.

Ms. Deb Kruger of 815 Ropp Road, Normal IL, was sworn in. She wanted to know what studies had been done to confirm the flow of the water being drained into the basins.

Mr. Hovanec said that his team completed a topographic survey, and that the elevation indicates the direction of the drainage. They are also working very closely with the Town of Normal engineering team. As of now, their studies show that the water would be draining mostly to the west.

Ms. Kruger asked if he had specifically observed the ground to the south of the development,

Mr. Hovanec said yes, and the water running onto the Rivian property from the south would be accepted onto their site and drained through the detention basins.

Ms. Nancy Boitnott of 9487 E 1950 North Rd, Bloomington IL, was sworn in. She had concerns about the existing farm tile that is on Rivian’s property. Since the tiles are connected to other farms, she wanted to know how that would be addressed.

Mr. Hovanec said that Rivian was under obligation to pick up all tiles that were connected and route them through, meaning any tiles that are connected will be routed around the development.

Ms. Boitnott asked if there were maps showing these areas.

Mr. Hovanec said they did not currently have maps but that it was part of the contractor’s obligation for their grading permit. There will be a study done.

Ms. Boitnott asked if that study would include probing and mapping all the existing tiles. Mr. Hovanec said it will include trenches to see if they intersect any of the surrounding tiles.

Ms. Boitnott expressed concern as to where the basins will be filtering water to once they are full and asked if there was any possibility that it would drain to the farmland to the south.

Mr. Hovanec said that it would release to the west, and that it would not be possible to release to the south. He added that a large portion of the land to the south drains toward Rivian. He also added that it is part of the Town of Normal code and the Illinois Drainage Law to limit impact to other properties from a storm water perspective.

Ms. Boitnott asked if Rivian would be creating additional structures for water waste to compensate for extra water.

Mr. Hovanec said no, the rate that the water is running off will be very slow and should have little effect.

Ms. Boitnott asked how the rain will be controlled during construction.

Mr. Hovanec said that creating the water detention basins would be one of the first steps of construction.

Ms. Boitnott asked if the tile research and mapping would be made available to the public. Mr. Hovanec said that he could make that possible.

Ms. Boitnott also asked about weed control and mowing. She mentioned that the farmstead across from Rivian had been unkept for quite some time.

Mr. Hovanec responded by saying that the goal would be to start construction as soon as possible, and that the area she was referring to would be part of the early stages of construction.

Ms. Boitnott asked about the additional exit that Mr. Hovanec mentioned previously

Mr. Hovanec said that the two access points that they have proposed would be the College Avenue extension, and one on the northeast side of the property. Both are being reviewed by IDOT.

At this time Mr. McBride closed the public hearing and called for a motion.

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

Mr. Broad asked what the long-term plan was for the end of College Avenue.

Ms. Davison said that there are no official plans at this time, but there would be discussions of how the outlet would be handled in the future.

Ms. Wodika asked how the questions in which the answers were not currently know would be handled.

Ms. Davison said Staff would reach out about that information and include it in the Council Report.

Mr. Broad asked if he was correct in understanding that staff would specifically be looking into the question that had been brought up about the noise pollution.

Ms. Davison said that when she writes her council report it, she reiterates the highlights of the meeting, and that she would be sure to include that question.

Mr. McBride added that Town Staff takes their roles very seriously and that as things develop, they can be contacted with any questions.

At this time Mr. McBride called for a vote.

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

c. 24-10-15-PC: Site Plan, Northwest of Rivian Motorway and West College- Lots 1 and 2 in the NN2 WH Subdivision (PINs- 13-26-400-002 & 003, 13-26-300-005)

Please note that this agenda item was discussed in the above section.

Mr. Matejka moved to approve this item, and Mr. Broad seconded.

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

d. 24-10-16-PC: Amended Site Plan, 200 Greenbriar

Ms. Davison reviewed the staff report. This property is along Veterans Parkway, in the same lot as Michael’s, and the proposal is to put a building on the far west end of the property’s parking lot. The proposal would not require any rezoning as it is already B-1. Since the property is larger than five acres and has B-1 zoning, it requires review by the Planning Commission.

The developer would be reinstalling the landscaping that was required when the original project was built years ago. This mean there will be more trees added to the islands throughout the parking lot. They will also be adding additional landscaping along Veterans Parkway. There will be some landscape islands lost during the construction of the building, but they would be relocated to the east of the building.

The business being proposed is a Dave’s Hot Chicken. There will be a drive thru lane around three sides of the building. The building itself would face towards Michael’s and the drive thru would be on the same side as Veterans Parkway. Staff does not have any concerns about the building with impacts on public right of way, as there will still be plenty of room for cars in the parking lot.

The building meets community design standards. The sign package that they are proposing would require a variance since the other businesses on the lot almost meet the Town’s limit. The other noteworthy issue would be parking. Some parking would be lost with the addition of the new building. Currently, the site should have 380 spaces per code. However, the parking code is a little outdated in terms of how much parking is needed at a commercial site, and this property has a large amount of under-utilized parking.

Lighting would meet code, and Staff has found no issues with access to the site. Overall, staff recommends approval.

Mr. McBride asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.

Mr. Ropp brought up the possible issues with traffic flow. He noted that it is already difficult turning out of that lot and wanted to know if a traffic study had been done.

Ms. Davison said that traffic studies are not often done due to the cost. She pointed out that due to the size of the lot, there are already three potential exits. Staff does not anticipate an increase in traffic due to this development.

Mr. Broad said that Ms. Davison offered some helpful comments, but asked if she could give a rough numerical figure of how full the parking lot gets day to day.

Ms. Davison said that the satellite image included in the proposal showed a decent representation of how full the lot is on any given day.

Mr. McBride brought up a concern about the flow of the parking lot and implied that it was currently inadequate.

Ms. Davison said that the additional landscaping and the building’s presence should help with directing traffic.

At this time Mr. McBride asked if the applicant had anything to add.

Ms. Laura Tobben of 2709 Mcgraw, Bloomington IL was sworn in. She stated that she was with Farnsworth Group and was present to represent the applicant and that she would be happy to answer any questions.

With no questions from the Commission or members of the public, Mr. McBride closed the public hearing.

Mr. Matejka moved to adopt the findings and recommendations as proposed by staff and Ms. Wodika seconded.

Mr. McBride called for a vote.

All in favor: 6

Opposed:0

The motion carried.

e. 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) (CARRIED OVER from the September 5, 2024 meeting):

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

Mr. McBride acknowledged that these three items were carried over from the previous Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing has remained open, and anyone that had been previously sworn in to testify would still technically be sworn in.

Mr. Querciagrossa said that at the last meeting the Town was made aware of some covenants that apply to the property that may conflict with the proposed plans. Generally, the Town has broad constitutional authority to zone property and control the subdivision process. The authority is not limitless, and the Town can relinquish some of that authority in the event of a private agreement, such as an annexation. However, what we have been made aware of in this instance are private covenants and restrictions that the Town is not a party to, and as a result, the Town is not bound by whatever may exist in those covenants and restrictions. He added that while looking over the covenants, it was not clear to him if they apply to the parcels being discussed. If they do in fact apply, because they are private, any legal action would be a private dispute between the parties to those covenants. The Town would not be directly involved in remedying such dispute.

He was also made aware of the HOA’s opinion on those covenants and cautioned that there may be some testimony related to them. According to the Town’s zoning code, 15.4-1: This Code is not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant, or other private agreement; provided that where the requirements of this Code are more restrictive than such easements, covenants or private agreements, the requirement of the Code shall govern. Basically, the zoning code doesn’t nullify private agreements but acts as a baseline. That provision allows private parties to hold themselves to standards and restrict themselves further than the zoning code may. Overall, the Town is not obligated to follow any private covenants that apply to this land.

Mr. Broad asked Mr. Querciagrossa if one party to a covenant feels that a party to that covenant is not fulfilling their responsibilities, they have remedies they can pursue but they do not involve the Town.

Mr. Querciagrossa said that was correct. There could be a situation where a lawsuit could be initiated that the Town gets pulled in to stop construction while the covenants are being settled.

Mr. Matthews confirmed with Mr. Querciagrossa that even if the Commission is aware of the covenants, they would still be bound by the zoning code when making their decision.

Mr. Querciagrossa said that was correct.

At this time Ms. Davison offered a brief summery. There were three proposals up for discussion. On the west side, it had been requested to rezone some land west of Canyon Creek Dr from R-1B to R-2. The next would be to amend the preliminary plan in that same area to convert most of what would have been detached single family lots to attached two-family lots. On the east side the request would be to amend the preliminary subdivision plan to go from detached single family lots to attached single family lots. The zoning on the east side is currently R-2 and therefore would need no change.

At this time Mr. McBride invited the applicant forward.

Jim O’Neal of 15884 Belfry Dr, Bloomington IL was sworn in. B.J. Armstrong, who had been previously sworn in also came forward.

Mr. O’Neal started off by saying on Tuesday, September 17th, at 5:30 PM, he and Mr. Armstrong met with the members of the HOA at the Keller Williams office in Bloomington. This meeting was meant to discuss the HOA’s questions and concerns about the proposed development. The meeting ran for approximately 2 hours.

Mr. O’Neal appreciated Mr. Querciagrossa’s comments explaining the Planning Commission’s legal obligation to the HOA. He added that he did file the community restrictions for the first addition to the Trails on Sunset Lake subdivision as a recorded document. Within that document the restrictions do have a section discussing Lots 106 and Lots 153. The recorded legal description of the property is only specified as the first addition to the Trails on Sunset Lake.

Mr. Armstrong commented that during the meeting with the HOA, he expressed his desire to complete the project in a way that would be harmonious with the existing neighborhood.

Mr. Matejka asked if any changes were made to the previous plan.

Mr. Armstrong said no.

At this time Mr. McBride asked if there were residents that wished to speak.

Mr. Steve Mann of 1950 Haverhill CC Ct, Normal IL was sworn in and stated that he was there serving as legal representation for the Trails on Sunset Lake HOA. Mr. Joshua Crowder, who had been previously sworn in, also came forward.

Mr. Mann referred to a letter that he had sent to the Town and thanked the Commission for considering it. He went on to say that the HOA feels that the restrictive covenants that have been previously mentioned were relevant and would like them included in the administrative record. The Town of Normal Zoning Code specifically states, “This Code is not intended to abrogate any easement, covenant, or other private agreement; provided that where the requirements of this Code are more restrictive than such easements, covenants or private agreements, the requirement of the Code shall govern.” (15.4-1).

Mr. Mann went on to cite a case that had been mentioned in the letter, Chicago v. City of Des Plaines, 32 Ill. App. 3d 722 (1974). During this case the city went to bat for the homeowners to defend the exact language of the provision in the code. In that case the court found that determining whether or not the restrictive covenant could be ignored was something that needed to be considered. Mr. Mann stated that whether Mr. Querciagrossa believed the covenants were something that would be addressed by the Planning Commission, or something that would be addressed perhaps by a declaratory matter at the state court level, it is still something that is very much relevant and directly connected with the Zoning Code.

Mr. Mann stated in his memo that there are a number of provisions that directly deal with lot division. He stated that the covenants were a declaration signed by the developer. He claimed that the covenant does pertain to the lots being discussed. In paragraph 47 of the restrictions, it indicates that “Each lot owner in The Veranda Home Collection at Trails on Sunset Lake, 1st Addition shall be a member of The Trails on Sunset Lake (Association). Said Association shall be incorporated as an Illinois Not For Profit Corporation and the property subject to the jurisdiction of this Association shall include the lots in The Veranda Home Collection at Trails on Sunset Lake First Addition and any other real estate added, annexed or conveyed thereto.”

Mr. Mann said that the scope of these restrictions was proper to consider. In regard to the Chicago vs The City of Des Plaines, the owner of the land was requesting to rezone residential property to build business and increase the property value. The court looked at whether the residents agreed to abrogate the agreement. They also went on to determine whether it was impossible to perform the restrictions that were set forth in the covenant restrictions, and in that instance the court found that not to be true.

Mr. Mann said that this situation was very similar to this case. He said a lot of the recent staff findings confirm that the land is still adequate for the use that it is currently planned for. Deciding to make zoning less restrictive is essentially allowing the developer to directly contradict the provision in the covenant that states that the lots cannot be divided. It could also open the door for the developer to add non-residential lots.

Mr. Mann asked that the Commission consider the HOA covenants and whether they can be ignored due to the Zoning Code.

Mr. Crowder acknowledged that there is a legal description describing what the property is. This description states “By all present and future owners or parties in interest of lots 106-153 in the aforesaid subdivision” indicating that all land in between should be included in the covenant.

Mr. Matejka said that in terms of decision making, it would be possible for the covenants to lead to private action between the HOA and the developer, but wanted to clarify if they would affect the role of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Querciagrossa stated that it was his opinion that the covenants should not affect the decisions of the Planning Commission. He reiterated that the covenants do not apply in any way to the Town’s actions in rezoning.

Mr. Ropp asked Ms. Davison if the Town’s position was to rezone based on the standards of the zoning code.

Ms. Davison stated that the Town’s position remains favorable regardless of the covenants because it meets the code standards.

Mr. Broad stated after hearing the legal perspective of both the HOA and the developers, that it was his understanding that the Planning Commission must make a decision based on the Zoning Code and the findings and recommendations of Staff.

Mr. McBride asked for confirmation that the line “is not intended to” does not mean “does not”. Mr. Querciagrossa said that was correct.

Mr. Mann stated that if you do not follow the analysis laid out in the previously mentioned case, it would be as if the Town had nullified that section of their code.

Mr. McBride reminded Mr. Mann that it is the Planning Commission’s roll to hold the public hearing, to listen, to provide a space for discussion and to make recommendations on a case-by case basis. Ultimately the Town Council will have the final decision.

Mr. McBride asked if there were any others present that wished to speak.

Mark Sperry, who had been sworn in previously, approached. Mr. Sperry stated that as an HOA board member, he had not anticipated this issue when agreeing to serve. He acknowledged that the developers had created a high-quality product when developing the neighborhood and stated that if they say they intend to build something that is cohesive with the existing neighborhood, he would be inclined to believe them. However, after speaking with the residents of 19 different homes in the neighborhood, no one seemed to be happy with the proposal. They have expressed a desire to keep the continuity of the neighborhood.

Mr. David Brown of 505 N. Main St. was sworn in. He was there as a representative from Lewis, Yockey & Brown to represent the developers. He wanted to reference Exhibit 7 of the plans and stated that the lot numbering does not totally represent the lots and lot numbering scheme that are described in the covenants document. The 5.75 acres which is the First Addition to Trails on Sunset Lake subdivision is only a portion of the lots that are in the Veranda homes area. The reference in the covenants, 106-153 is the low end and the high end of lots that are included in first addition, but there are intervening lot numbers that do not run consecutively and are not included in the final plat. Instead of referencing “lots 106-153" the covenants should have been done in lot groupings. For example, lots “106-111, 123-153" or whatever the actual groupings of lot numbering were in the final record.

Mr. Broad asked for the significance of Mr. Brown’s observation.

Mr. Brown said that without looking at a copy of the preliminary plan, the covenant does not do a good job of clarifying what lots are included.

Mr. Dwayne Whitlow, who had been previously sworn in, approached. When he purchased his home, he did refer to the lots. He feels that what should have been included in the covenants was not relevant, as his decision was based off of the site plans.

Ms. Davison stated that from a Staff perspective, she wanted to make clear that the Town does not represent the applicant or the homeowner. Town Staff is present to clarify what the code standards are, which exist outside of the covenants. The Commission is not tasked with deciding whether or not the covenants are relevant.

Mr. Andrew Keagan, who had been previously sworn in, approached. He stated that he appreciated that Mr. O’Neal and Mr. Armstrong had held a meeting but felt that it didn’t have much impact on the situation. He felt that the suggestions he had brought forward were not considered and felt that the meeting was held simply to check a box.

He added that the covenants were handed to the board prior to 2022, and that while the lots may not match up, they were laid out correctly when the covenants were presented to the HOA and residents.

Mr. Sperry approached again and wanted to address the comments previously made by Mr. Brown. He wanted to clarify that the Mr. Brown’s point was that the lot numbers should have been different.

Mr. Brown said that was correct; they should have been expanded to be more inclusive.

Mr. Sperry stated that when you look at the map, you can clearly see what the lots are and felt that that point was not relevant to the issue at hand.

Mr. McBride appreciated the discussion from both sides.

Mr. Crowder commented that while he appreciated the Planning Commission’s time, he felt as if the Commission was “gun decking” the issue, meaning they were not thoroughly analyzing without completing every necessary step. He felt that the Town’s priority of providing more housing was taking priority without regard to the wishes of the residents at Trails on Sunset Lake. He also pointed out an error on the map, stating that it did not properly show the neighborhood entrances.

Mr. Armstrong addressed the comment about the error on the map and stated that it was a preliminary plan and was not meant to be entirely accurate.

At this time Mr. McBride closed the public hearing.

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

Ms. Wodika stated, regarding Mr. Crowder’s comment, that as a volunteer Planning Commissioner, that she takes her position very seriously. She diligently reviews the materials provided to her prior to the meeting, as well as reviews the minutes. She did not want there to be any indication that she would “rubber stamp” anything, and that her intentions were to always be thorough.

Mr. Matejka added that the Planning Commission’s mandate is constrictive. They can make recommendations based on whether or not something meets the zoning code. He feels that the concerns about the covenants of the HOA were issues that were worth being heard, but the Commission could not make a ruling based on those issues. He thanked Mr. Armstrong for holding the meeting for the HOA.

Mr. McBride added that he does encourage the public coming to these meetings to express their opinions.

Mr. Broad agreed with Mr. Matejka and hopes that the HOA and the developers can still come to a harmonious agreement.

At this time Mr. McBride called for a vote.

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

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

Please note that the above item was discussed in the previous section but was voted on individually. Mr. Matejka moved to approve, and Mr. Broad seconded. The vote was as follows:

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

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

Please note that the above item was discussed in the previous section but was voted on individually. Mr. Matejka moved to approve, and Ms. Wodika seconded. The vote was as follows:

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

f. 24-10-17-PC: Comprehensive Zoning Text Amendment

Ms. Davison pointed out to the Commission that this was a comprehensive amendment to the zoning code but was not a deep dive as the intent was to clean up some of the language and organize. That being said, a few of the changes were a bit more involved.

Mr. McBride asked the Commission if there were any questions for Staff.

Mr. Troemel added to Ms. Davison's comments, stating that some sections were eliminated due to lack of need or use, such as R1AA zoning. He also said a few minor changes were made to parking as well as changes to the multifamily calculation, green space requirements and design standards.

Ms. Wodika asked about the Tobacco and Vape shops and wanted to know why One Normal Plaza was specifically referenced.

Ms. Davison said that the industry has changed quite a bit over the years, and the Town Council has since adopted separation requirements for vape shops. Previously they had been treated as retail, and it was determined that in some circumstances treating it that way was not appropriate.

Mr. Ropp asked about Airbnbs and how they relate to zoning.

Ms. Davison said the Town Council has heard complaints about Airbnbs and that there is a plan to address this at an upcoming Town Council work session. Currently, Airbnbs are licensed, which is not a zoning code issue. It is possible that the Council could change the licensing, which would still not be a zoning issue. Thus, the Planning Commission may not hear this issue at a public hearing.

With no further discussion. Mr. McBride called for a motion.

Mr. Troemel added that since the zoning code amendment was not a site-specific zoning issue, they did not send out notice. He did want to point out that the Inspections Department does send out monthly emails updating local engineers, realtors, contractors, basically anyone who may be affected by zoning. Thus, he sent an email notice about the proposed zoning code changes to that group.

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

Other business:

At this time, an election was held for Chair and Vice Chair.

Mr. Matejka made a motion to nominate Mr. McBride as chair and Mr. Ropp as Vice Chair. Mr. McBride called for a vote.

All in favor: 6

Opposed: 0

The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 PM

https://www.normalil.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5089