City of Batavia Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals met April 18.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
1. Meeting Called to Order for the Plan Commission Meeting Chair LaLonde called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
2. Roll Call:
Members Present: Chair LaLonde; Vice-Chair Schneider; Commissioners McGrail, Harms, Peterson, and Gosselin
Members Absent: Commissioner Joseph
Also Present: Mayor Schielke; Laura Newman, City Administrator; Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer; Drew Rackow, Planner; Chris Aiston, Economic Development Consultant; Jeff Albertson, Building Commissioner; Scott Buening, Director of Community Development; Chris Cudworth, Communications Specialist; Gary Holm, Director of Public Works; and Alderman O’Brien
3. Items to be Removed, Added or Changed
There were no items to be removed, added or changed.
4. Approval of Minutes: April 4, 2018 Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals
Motion: To approve the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals minutes from April 4, 2018
Maker: Peterson
Second: Harms
Voice Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent
Motion carried.
5. One Washington Place, Mixed Use Development
111-133 East Wilson Street and 20 North River Street, 1 N Washington LLC, applicant
• Public Hearing: Major Amendment to a Planned Development Overaly
• Design Review
Motion: To open the public hearing
Maker: Schneider
Second: McGrail
Voice Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent
Motion carried.
Strassman distributed a correspondence to the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals (PC & ZBA) that City staff received today from a resident. Strassman stated this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the approved One Washington Place development. One Washington Place was approved as a Planned Development Overlay by Ordinance 17-15, after a negative recommendation by the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission initially did not approve Design Review for this Planned Development, but subsequently approved it through appeal. These approvals remain effective unless the City Council approves an amended Planned Development Overlay. If that occurs, the Commission would need to approve a replacement Design Review for the amended Planned Development Overlay.
The reason for the amended Planned Development Overlay proposal is the applicant’s encountering issues related to project financing. The applicant sought, and received a revised Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment agreement by the City Council in January. This revised agreement includes physical changes to the building that:
• Eliminated commercial space on the Wilson Street frontage, replacing it with residential units, reducing the commercial space in the building from 14,350 square feet to 5,664 square feet
• Reduced public parking spaces from 351 to 335
• Increased residential units from 186 to 194
The plans under consideration tonight contain the following:
• 5,725 square feet of commercial space
• 365 public parking spaces
• 190 residential units, including those now proposed on the Wilson Street frontage
The Plan Commission has separate responsibilities for the proposed amended One Washington Place. First, the Plan Commission must conduct the public hearing to review and take testimony from the public on the proposed amendments to the approved Planned Development Overlay, and to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial of the amendments. Plan Commission action has no effect on the existing and still effective approved Planned Development Overlay.
The Commission’s second responsibility is to conduct Design Review to consider building elevation materials and colors and landscape improvements. Commission action shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Design Review. Approval of the Design Review together with City Council approval of the amended Planned Development would replace the Commission’s previous Design Review approval. Plan Commission denial of the proposed Design Review would leave the Commission’s previously approved Design Review as the effective Design Review approval for the property.
Other than the change on the Wilson frontage to residential, staff feels the modified design of the building retains much of the character of the approved building. Proposed landscaping changes also retain much of the character of the approved development.
Staff feels a commercial presence on the Wilson frontage as previously approved is more appropriate for this property compared to the proposed residential units. Batavia’s downtown commercial core is characterized by commercial spaces on building street frontages, like what is included in the approved Planned Development Overlay. The design of the commercial spaces emphasized entrances, creating a pedestrian scale to the building that is common on Wilson Street in this part of downtown. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes downtown goals and policies to encourage street level activity and commercial uses, along with goals and policies encouraging a healthy mix of uses. The Comprehensive Plan also stresses the downtown as a desired destination to live, work, and enjoy recreational opportunities. The Homes for a Changing Region plan recommends additional rental units be provided in the City.
The applicant and staff have been working together to refine details of specific aspects of the development, a number of which may affect the physical design of parts of the development. The final design for reconstruction of State Street that would take place with redevelopment has not been finalized. Another detail involves the applicant proposing heating the garage which staff is not supportive of due to the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining the system. The City Council would make this decision. Whether the garage is heated or not could affect the exterior walls of the building by the presence or absence of garage doors or a change to the sizes and/or pattern of other wall openings.
Staff continues to work with the applicant to revise the geometry of the parking garage layout to ensure maneuverability throughout. Changes may result in a reduction in the number of parking spaces to be provided. The existing Planned Development Overlay approval granted relief to parking supply and geometry that can accommodate a reduction in the number of parking spaces to provide a functional garage.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed and approved a replacement Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for this development. In their approval, Commissioners noted that the amended design of the building would add to the character of the Historic District. Commissioners commented the loss of desired potential commercial space, but also noted that the downtown has commercial spaces now available. The HPC approved the exterior materials and colors as proposed, with Wheat as its first preference and Biscuit as second preference for the cream-colored siding. Staff feels either is an acceptable color.
Staff recommends the Commission conduct the public hearing for the amendment to the Planned Development Overlay and conduct the Design Review. After all speakers have had an opportunity to speak and the Commission has received the information it wants, the Commission should close the hearing and conclude consideration of the Design Review.
For the Amendment to the Planned Development Overlay, staff recommends the Commission approve the amendment subject to the following:
1. Modification to Zoning Code Section 4.203.S to allow pull-through parking spaces with staff approval of the garage layout, to include specification of “compact vehicle parking only” for a limited number of spaces.
2. Restoration of the commercial uses along Wilson Street, with the Wilson Street building elevation to reflect the previously approved Design Review.
3. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted in support of this amendment to the Planned Development and to accommodate any changes per the approved Design Review and/or City approval of State Street reconstruction.
4. Final approval by City staff of plans for construction that are in accordance with the approved Design Review and State Street reconstruction project.
5. Other minor changes necessary to implement the project.
For Design Review, staff recommends the Commission approve Design Review subject to the following:
1. Approving findings for the Design Review. A draft of these findings for the Commission’s consideration is attached.
2. City Council approval of the amended Planned Development Overlay.
3. Final staff approval of plans that may include changes to the amended Planned Development Overlay per City Council approval, and/or changes to the Wilson Street building elevation for street-level commercial uses to reflect the previously approved Design Review.
4. This Design Review shall replace the previously approved Design Review for this development.
5. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted in support of this Design Review and approved by the Planned Development Overlay, and to accommodate any changes necessitated by City approval of State Street reconstruction.
6. Final approval of exterior garage wall treatment by the Plan Commission if size or pattern of wall opening changes significantly.
7. Final staff approval of the parking layout.
8. Finish details as follows:
a. Down spouts to match the adjacent trim
b. Add more red color presented to the Wilson and River Street internal sides
c. Exterior material colors as presented, with Wheat color for the cream-colored siding shown.
d. Edge treatment to the ridges of the bell tower roof
e. Paint the exposed lumber on the underside of the balconies to match the trim
9. Other minor changes necessary to implement the project.
David Patzelt, Shodeen, addressed the Commission. He stated that they are not here tonight to speak to the height of the building, the bulk of the building or the architectural style of the building. He introduced the project architect to the PC/ZBA.
Don McKay, architect from Nagle Hartray, presented on the proposed changes. He stated there is a net increase to four residential units, a reduction of retail area of 8,865 square feet, and the only retail remaining is along River Street. There is a net increase in the number of proposed parking spaces to about 25 subject to further revisions subject to navigation in the garage itself. McKay presented a PowerPoint presentation to the PC and ZBA discussing the substantial changes to the design: floor plans, garage layout, parking in the garage, proposed four residential units, building elevation (areas not changed were greyed out to highlight the areas that have been changed), and elevation options considered. The PC and ZBA discussed the proposed changes with the applicant.
Chris Aiston addressed the PC ZBA. He stated he wholeheartedly recognizes and respects the amount of time and resources the Community Development Department staff has put into the analysis and recommendations presented in the One Washington Place redevelopment project. In fact, he has agreed and continue to agree with the staff’s recommendation generally. We do, however, disagree on the plan revision associated with the change of use along the East Wilson Street frontage, from commercial space to additional apartments.
With respect to the specific assertion that the change in first floor Wilson Street building composition will essentially truncate the commercial space along E. Wilson Street, in his opinion, if there were to be such a truncating effect, he would argue that it wouldn’t necessarily apply to the south side of Wilson Street.
a. The East Wilson Street commercial district, east of River Street, doesn’t allow for easy pedestrian crossing between the north and south sides of the street - versus say along E. Wilson between Water Street and River Street; or Third Street in Geneva and First Street in St. Charles – and therefore, in terms of pedestrian flow up and down the street, these two sides of the street are somewhat independent of each other.
b. Overall existing or prospective land use pattern shows a predominance of commercial uses fronting E. Wilson St. from the River to Delia St. The fact that there are so many properties along E. Wilson Street between the OWP redevelopment project and Prairie Street having great potential for redevelopment and already located in a TIF district, along both the south side and north side of the Street, one could easily envision new street level commercial enterprises, including retailers and restaurants, essentially leap- frogging the OWP eastward on E. Wilson Street.
c. It should probably be noted also that the frontage along E. Wilson Street in question has for generations been in office, service or institutional uses, generally not considered pedestrian traffic generators. Also, the OWP project frontage along River Street has for more than twenty years been a public parking lot. The fact remains that, even with only 5725 SF of commercial space across the entire project area, if even only a portion of this 5725 SF is ultimately occupied by a retailer or restaurant, this occupancy will represent an incalculable percent increase over the zero percent the City has realized from the project area for more than 20 years.
He continued with stating ideally, the redevelopment project would include commercial space along both the River Street frontage as well as the E. Wilson St frontage. However, when considering the potential overall positive impact on the community and especially the City’s downtown commercial district, even with replacing the approximate 8500 SF of commercial space in the originally approved project with four additional residential units, from an economic development perspective, although One Washington Place may not be the homerun the original design may have been, still, in his estimation, it’s still a stand-up triple.
In his mind, the meat and potatoes of the project has always been and continues to be the additional 200 housing units and more than 200 additional public parking spaces in our downtown. And because the four residential units decrease parking demand over that of the 8400 SF of originally proposed commercial space - particularly under the shared use parking model and with respect to peak use times – there’s been an improvement in the parking demand versus inventory dynamic resulting from the revised building composition proposed in this amended plan.
Commercial Space: There are a number of reasons why, in his opinion, requiring the developer to construct commercial (and particularly retail) space along East Wilson is not practical.
a. Floor to Ceiling heights do not meet modern day, desired standards, especially with respect to retail.
b. Fairly severe street slope and the difficulties and costs associated with making street- level commercial space handicap from the sidewalk grades.
c. Typical and most practical floor design for retail space is long and narrow. Due to parking lot geometry and a desire to maximize the number of parking spaces on each garage level, the retail spaces will have floor areas that instead would necessarily be wide and shallow; not long and narrow.
As to the apartments at street level themselves, this relationship is not so unique as it may seem. More and more downtown redevelopments include housing units right at street level. Frankly, and this is just my personal opinion but if I had a choice between entering and leaving my home through a common hallway, elevator and vestibule versus walking right outside into or from the open air (particularly if there were a fenced in outdoor space for plantings and private sitting, etc.), he’d take the latter over the former.
Again, he respects the Community Development staff’s work and recommendations as they relate to the change the changes proposed for the street-level uses along East Wilson Street. However, he believes the developer will not construct the project without the City having approved the proposed change. Soon after discovering that the developer had underestimated the project construction costs, he along with the Mayor, City Administrator, met with the developer, represented by Mr. Shodeen and Mr. Patzelt, during which we were told by Mr. Shodeen, unequivocally that he would not proceed with constructing the project if the City Council did not approve this proposed change. It is for this reason primarily that he strongly urges the Plan Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of same, as the One Washington Place redevelopment, as revised, is an opportunity that cannot be missed.
Finally, he’d like to share some additional information from other communities having recently considered projects of a similar nature, where the building footprint fronting the street is not exclusively planned for commercial use: 101 West in Barrington, Ninety 7 Fifty On the Park in Orland Park, F & C Development in Lisle, and Foxford Station in Western Springs.
Schneider expressed his dismay that these proposed changes were not part of the original presentation to the PC ZBA and he wishes that the proper amount of homework were done early on in the process by both parties. He stated that someone did not do the job right and that upsets him.
Chair LaLonde swore in those in the audience who wanted to address the Commission. Chair LaLonde opened the floor for public comment.
Carl Dinwiddie, 1156 Pine Street, stated that he has had concerns about this project for about two years now. Dinwiddie asked if Mr. Aiston is representing the City when he says he does not agree with the findings or who is he representing. Aiston stated that he is a professional consultant who works with the City of Batavia and has worked on economic development for almost thirty years and he is presenting his own opinion and represents himself as a consultant. Staff and he do not always agree with everything. Dinwiddie thanked Aiston and shared with the Commission that he believes Aiston is very good at creating rosy scenarios. Dinwiddie stated the following:
• He does not support any variances on this property for the One North Washington Project.
• The skyline of Batavia from both sides of the river will be irreparably destroyed forever with this project.
• He does not support the cost, such as the property purchases that give about 1.5 million dollars worth of property to the developer for $10.
• He does not support the higher than originally agreed upon general obligation bonds to fund this construction or the increased interest on these bonds. We have already absorbed the demolition cost and utility connection of telephone lines.
• The structure is too large for that location, too massive, bulky and too high
• The building would take away from the quality of life for homeowners to the north of Washington Street and also for the residents who live east all the way up to Prairie Street.
David Peebles, 525 North Avenue, asked if you have to resubmit to IDOT new traffic counts because of the additional residents and the parking. Buening answered that the developer would have to get IDOT permits for any modifications in the right-of-way. They are proposing a pull off area on Washington Avenue. All of the vehicular access would be off of State Street.
Richard Nielist, 217 Trent Drive, stated that he believes that this project will be developed and would revitalize the downtown area. Losing some of the commercial space is not what you prefer but he agrees with the developer, if it is cost prohibitive than he has to make some adjustments. The commercial properties in the downtown are going to benefit greatly by this. He would like to see the other commercial properties develop and prosper and the whole town will. He is in support of the project and the change presented by Shodeen is necessary for this project.
Mary Harris, 5-31 North River Street, stated that she believes that this project is important to the downtown area and the revitalization of this area.
Chris Graham, 524 Carlson Court, stated that she agrees with a lot of what Mr. Dinwiddie has said. She thanked the PC for voting no the first time. She thinks unfortunately Shodeen is asking for more changes and she cannot imagine how a company that does as much work as Shodeen does that they estimated the project at 6 million dollars short. By doing that, what happens to the City of Batavia is we will be looking at more cement board and less brick and stone. We will have a few more apartments and fewer parking places and there will be no retail space on Wilson in which she thought was so important in the beginning. Now we need to heat the garage too. She does not feel that Shodeen has been a good business partner here. The more we spend as a City the more they ask for. This project reminds me of the children’s story The Giving Tree because it seems like Batavia is giving more and more and soon there is going to be nothing left. She feels that we need to stop our losses and stop this negative cash flow. She asked the City staff to stop wasting their time and the taxpayer’s money on this white elephant. It is time to say no again.
Dick Yingst, 1310 Newton Avenue, asked if staff offered a position on the original proposal and if not, then why is staff making a suggestion against this proposal. What changed as far as staff’s position. Buening stated that Community Development staff did not take a verbal position. We have expressed some concerns about the loss of commercial throughout the revisions but no verbal position was given. Yingst asked why is staff objecting to it now and did not object to it back then. Newman stated that City Council asked Buening his opinion on the project and Buening shared from the Community Development perspective that they felt that staying with the commercial on Wilson Street would be better. Council did hear both opinions.
Michael Marconi, 16 E Wilson, stated that he owns some properties in town and some next door and across the street from the project. Marconi stated that he understands that Batavia does not need any more vacant retail units. However, he does get nervous about the continuity of the downtown when you go from retail to residential, what happens to the commercial people on the other side or across the street. If we are very disjointed than we need to find a way to become less disjointed and find a way to get the people across the street. He has a building across the street that he would love to have first floor residential but was told that it was a non-starter and to do something different. Is there a way to take those apartments and make them more parking spaces. He gave the example of the first floor parking garage in St. Charles. McKay stated that they could replace the residential with parking if that was more desirable. In terms of addressing the construction issues we could replace the residential with garage because it is all on the same floor plane. Marconi added it could be dressed up very nicely. Aiston stated that in the ideal world it would be sensational to have a long commercial corridor but he was told that the project would not be built that way. He believes that they would not construct the project without replacing the commercial because it is not economically and financially feasible. It may not be the home run but it is a substantial project and it would make a huge difference. Aiston does believe the value of the adjacent properties and the properties further east will increase in value in respect to more commercial projects. Aiston overviewed the parking consultants report and stated that the change from commercial to residential will reduce the demand for parking. There is still a deficiency in parking but it is greatly reduced due to this project. This is an excellent thing for the entire downtown. The residential and the parking are critical to the success and rejuvenation to the downtown Batavia. He believes that you are better using the frontage as residential than parking because it adds increment and more consumers. Patzelt added that they did look at adding additional parking in lieu of those additional units but the efficiency of the parking lot would be reduced. The cost per space on the parking deck then goes up. The other thing that happens, right now there is a surplus in parking spaces and staff feels comfortable taking spaces out of the plan for navigation of the garage and making navigation much better.
Lea Conkin, 117 North Prairie Street, stated that she is uncomfortable with the entire project. She feels like it is too big and visually it appears to be one story higher. She feels that you could do commercial space there. She stated that you could creatively look at this space as a larger space instead of doing tiny businesses next to each other. Make one bigger commercial space with one big entrance and exit. She hopes that making that commercial would be the Shodeen would not want to stay and say no. Another concern is the parking. She does not have a lot of faith in the way they have been proposing this project and what is to say that they do not make the parking garage for residents only. She does not trust them enough to believe that won’t happen further down the line. Aiston stated that they are selling bonds because it is a public parking garage and for the bond period of at least 20 years that public parking status cannot change. Buening stated that under the redevelopment agreement the City would be selling up to 200 parking passes that would allow for overnight parking. The entire parking lot is going to be public controlled by the City.
Jim Farenbach, 436 Waubonsee Trail, stated that it is great to see this project get this far. He stated that it is important to get to a final state whether it is not going to happen or if preferably it does happen, it would be great if it came sooner rather than later. The reason being is that it could get misunderstood that all development is laborious and time consuming. The reason that the process took so long is because there was a blight. The property was on the market for twelve years with no serious attempt of someone outside buying it. The City had to do a public private project to get to this point. At some point you need to do something and this needs to come to an end to remediate the blight, promote economic development and reap the gains of the next decision.
Brett Garret, 335 First Street, stated that he agrees with Conkin’s testimony. He is worried about the height. If this were going to happen, wouldn’t then the retail space fill up. He is concerned about the view of the City’s horizon from the library. He does not want to see a giant building there.
Marty Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant, stated that he is worried and scared about all of the risks in this project. It could backfire. The project is too dense and too big. It’s a big risk. He read in the Tribune that forty million dollars of bonds were released and asked if taxpayers are responsible to pay for that. Now he hears there is an over run. He asked why wasn’t it in the contract who would pay if there were an over run. Being so dense the apartments would be so small and undesirable and no one would want to move in and we would have a white elephant on our hands. The other concern is the traffic congestion. People would start to avoid the downtown and go elsewhere where it is less congested. A year ago he heard that there were problems with the local apartment complexes, a lot of police calls. Now the landlords are responsible for the tenants. He questioned who is responsible for this building, who is the landlord. Is the City the landlord? Buening answered that Shodeen would be the landlord. Barrett asked who issued the forty million dollars worth of bonds.
Aiston clarified the financials. Aiston explained that no bonds have been issued and will not until the project is approved. The plan is to issue as much as sixteen million dollars in bonds and a majority of the bonds is to pay for the parking garage and other TIF eligible expenses. The bonds are to be paid back from the anticipated tax increment from the property in question and by the developer as the property owner. The proceeds of the bonds would go towards assisting in the project, primarily the public elements of the project such as the garage and streetscape. We also have a Special Service Area (SSA) so in the event the increment falls short the developer has agreed to pay out of their funds a SSA tax that is strictly for the purpose of paying off the bonds. Aiston stated that we expect it to be built and fully occupied but if anything falls short it is on the developer. Barrett explained that the concern is based on the fact that the taxpayers are still paying bonds for the School District and Park District. None of the government taxing bodies seem to be working together. We need to have someone to do an audit to figure out exactly how much money we owe because if we keep spending money like this our bond ratings will be negatively affected and we would be paying very high interest.
Kevin Whittle, 912 Appleton Drive, stated that he was reluctant about this project because of its size and cost. He would love to be able to go to a place where he could take his family, which is what he liked about the proposed commercial as part of this project. Having the commercial aspect met a lot of people halfway, residents like himself to have a partnership with this building. Without commercial he does not have a use or an interest in this building.
James Stickling, 515 North Washington, shared that he recently moved to Batavia two years ago and is the recent owner of The Book Shop in Batavia. He stated that the aesthetics and feel of the downtown area is a lively and vital area that has beauty and historicity. He does not think that this building is very pretty. He does see a lot of open businesses here and empty business space. It looks like you are building Mr. Olympus in the middle of Eden. That is his concern just looking at this. It is a huge roll of the dice with that much business property opening. He is in favor of business property coming along on his side of River and it is an untapped resource as beautiful as it is. His genuine concern is the City that he fell in love with when he came here originally is not with it.
Carrie Wasmund, 228 Forest Avenue, shared that she lived here most of her life and her parents still live here. She has a heart for this town. From the beginning she has been against this. She is not anti-growth and is in support of something going onto that location. She is not anti-change and she has a growth-mindset, which is necessary in life for individuals and communities. She is not in support of this proposed project. Batavia is an art town and we thrive when we focus on that. The small places with heart are what Batavia thrives on. This project does not fit in with that. This project feels desperate. Why do we feel desperate? We have people visiting here and we have potential here. She stated that we could succeed and not have to settle. Remember who we are. She commented that she has nothing against Shodeen, she admires what Shodeen does, she just does not admire this. She stated that there is too much compromise on Batavia’s part and after this is built she would hate for the City to feel like a mistake was made and be stuck with such a monstrosity.
Motion: To close the public hearing
Maker: Schneider
Second: Peterson
Voice Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent
Motion carried.
The PC ZBA discussed the proposed project and considered the parking, staff’s recommendation on ingress and egress of the parking garage, streetscape, and retail. Peterson stated that the City is missing a great opportunity with the removal of the retail space. She also believes that the building aesthetic is very plain and not pleasing when considering the historical importance of Wilson Street. She suggested grander entrances into the building. Chair LaLonde concurred with Peterson’s concern about the aesthetics of the proposed residential. He asked that enhancements to the windows and entrances be taken into consideration going forward and the developer to work with staff regarding that. Chair LaLonde commented that, all in all, he is in favor of moving this project along from the PC ZBA. The PC ZBA discussed the color choices recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Albertson clarified that the preferred colors were wheat and biscuit. Wheat is listed in the list of conditions. The PC ZBA concurred with the color wheat.
The PC ZBA discussed staff’s recommendations, in particular recommendation number two which is regarding commercial space. Gosselin stated that he would prefer commercial but is not opposed to residential. Peterson stated that she would prefer commercial. Peterson stated that she would agree with staff’s recommendation but would not oppose the project moving forward without commercial. Schneider stated that he is in full support of having commercial instead of the residential. Harms stated that she is okay with the residential. McGrail prefers the commercial but could be swayed to residential. LaLonde is not opposed to residential but would prefer commercial. He would vote in favor of residential to keep the project moving forward.
Motion: To approve the amendments to the planned development overlay with conditions 1, 3, 4 and 5 and eliminating condition 2
Maker: Gosselin
Second: McGrail
Roll Call Vote: Aye: Gosselin, Harms, LaLonde, McGrail, Peterson
Nay: Schneider
5-1 Vote, 1 Absent. Motion carried.
The PC ZBA reviewed the findings.
Motion: To approve the findings
Maker: Schneider
Second: Harms
Roll Call Vote: Aye: Gosselin, Harms, LaLonde, McGrail, Peterson, Schneider
Nay: None
6-0 Vote, 1 Absent. Motion carried.
The PC ZBA reviewed the design modifications and conditions. Chair LaLonde asked that items six and nine have the language ‘as determined by City of Batavia staff’ added. Chair LaLonde asked staff to work with the architect to provide enhancements to the character of the residential façade along Wilson Street, in particular making the entrances enhanced with architectural features or different materials to slightly change the appearance. The architect agreed that the residential façade could be spruced up. He stated that he would be happy to address that issue.
Motion: To approve the design modifications with the conditions two through nine. Items six and nine will have the added language ‘as determined by City of Batavia staff’, and adding condition 10 for staff to work with the developer to provide enhancements to the character of the residential façade along Wilson Street
Maker: Peterson
Second: Gosselin
Roll Call Vote: Aye: Gosselin, Harms, LaLonde, McGrail, Peterson, Schneider
Nay: None
6-0 Vote, 1 Absent. Motion carried.
6. Matters from the Public (for items NOT on the agenda) There were no matters from the public.
7. Other Business
Peterson asked if there were any changes to the commercial for Prairie Commons. Buening stated that there were no changes to the commercial and it was approved by City Council. The property should be closed on sometime in May and a model will be opened in sometime in September.
The development by Wal-Mart has a month or two before it is ready for occupancy. Newman added that they are at 85% occupancy.
8. Adjournment
There being no other business to discuss, Chair LaLonde asked for a motion to adjourn the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals. Peterson moved to adjourn the meeting, Harms seconded. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 pm.
http://www.cityofbatavia.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_04182018-1184
Alerts Sign-up