Community Development Committee

MINUTES August 8, 2011 Community Development Committee City of Batavia

Please NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to make an official record of the actions taken by the Committee/City Council, and to include some description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some of the individual attendee’s comments, nor the complete comments if referenced.

Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:30pm.

1. Roll Call

Members Present: Chair Brown, Vice-Chair Wolff (arrived at 7:38pm); Aldermen Sparks, Clark, Atac, Chanzit and Stark

Members Absent:

Also Present: Aldermen Frydendall, Volk, Dietz, and O’Brien; Bill McGrath, City Administrator; Gary Holm, Public Works Director; Noel Basquin, City Engineer; Jerry Swanson, Director of Community Development; Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer; Chuck Radovich, Special Legal Counsel for the Mooseheart Annexation Agreement; and Mayor Schielke (arrived at 7:47pm)

2. Approve Minutes for July 25, 2011

Motion: To approve the minutes for the July 25, 2011 Community Development Committee Meeting Maker: Sparks Second: Atac Voice Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent Motion carried.

3. Items Added/Removed/Changed There were no items to be removed, added or changed.

4. Ordinance 11-16: Mooseheart Annexation Agreement a. Presentation on Kane County Stormwater Management Ordinance b. Progress report on negotiations with Moose International – Revised agreement language relating to Parcel D and bridge crossing of Mill Creek (Jerry Swanson 8/5/11) Swanson reported that this agreement has been the subject of extensive negotiations between Moose International, the Batavia Park District and the City since the closing of the public hearing on July 18th. The Community Development Committee (CDC) discussed the item on July 25 and directed staff to continue to work towards a mutually acceptable agreement. On August 1, over one hundred individuals presented native flowers to the City Council in support Community Development Committee August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 6 of the City’s efforts to insure continued environmental protection through the annexation agreement for Parcel D, the Parks and Open Space parcel containing Mill Creek.

Although there has been significant progress made on issues relating to Parcel D and the park dedication issues, there has not been a final agreement on language. The City’s legal consultant, Chuck Radovich, has been working closely with Moose International’s legal counsel, Pat Griffin, to craft language acceptable to both parties. Because of the inability to get all parties together in advance of this writing, staff is unable to recommend adoption of Ordinance 11-16 as of this writing. We have attempted to balance the interests of all parties in this effort.

The matters that have been agreed to in concept are as follows:  We have removed all permitted uses from Parcel D except picnic shelter, pedestrian/bicycle trails, pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Mill Creek, and traditional Moose uses.  We have removed the requirement for a vehicular bridge across Mill Creek and left it as optional. As the bridge may cost over ten million dollars, and may have a significant environmental impact with limited benefit, staff has recommended that the bridge remain optional.

McGrath reported that the agreement has strengthened language regarding storm water issues. There will be no allowance of detention facilities in Parcel D and no detention may occur in a floodplain. There will be a buffer between floodplains and detention areas. A tree preservation program agreement has been added. Park land dedication/fee in lieu terms remain the same except that the Park District will pay Mooseheart $5,000 for every year it actually uses the property until the area is platted. The Park District has agreed to this provision.

The CDC discussed the pros and cons of building a new bridge, the existing bridge as a pedestrian bridge or revamped into a larger vehicle bridge, the 100 year floodplain, detention, and wetlands. The Committee discussed the possibility of future development near Parcel D. Swanson stated if the Committee and Council agrees that the bridge should be optional, than staff would ask that at the time any development is proposed for parcels C or E, we would show a roadway alignment. The roadway alignment would have to be designed in such a way that it would be connected to the bridge, if Moose elected to construct the bridge. McGrath added before you can plat that area, you would have to have a wetland delineation completed and a master generalized transportation plan. If the wetland delineation finds that there is no ideal location for a bridge, the master generalized transportation plan will have to be modified accordingly.

The Committee discussed bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Swanson noted that Article 22 paragraph H refers to pedestrian bicycle access and requires the owner to develop a comprehensive plan for bike and pedestrian circulation throughout the property. The Plan has to be reviewed by the Bicycle Commission and Plan Commission, and approved by the Council. Chair Brown assessed that the bicycle concerns are handled in paragraph H.

Basquin presented on the City Stormwater Management Ordinance. He reported that the intent of the Ordinance is to preserve as much of the green space as possible. Basquin discussed the Community Development Committee August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 6 retention component, water quality benefit to the Ordinance, Kane DuPage Soil and Water Conservation District, current standards for storm water management, flood plain, Army Corps of Engineers requirements, buffer strips for wetland and flood plain, and keeping areas as naturalized as possible. Basquin explained the stipulation for the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) within the Ordinance. Once the FQI is established, if the FQI goes down more than two points, the wetlands will be mitigated to get the wetland back where it was. Basquin discussed the long- term maintenance on the wetlands, Special Service Area (SSA), and backup SSA’s. Basquin concluded that all best management practices have to be in place before construction begins. Atac commented that she is not comfortable as the long-term management of the wetlands is not clearly defined in the agreement. She feels that there needs to be a clear plan. McGrath stated that a storm water management plan will be prepared prior to any development, and that it will be subject to City approval.

Segobiano addressed the CDC. He stated that if connectivity was not an issue, Moose would prefer to not have the bridge there because of the environmental issues. One of the best ways to approach this is to get a traffic study done at the time both Parcels C and E have been platted. By doing so, there will be more understanding on what is being done on both sides. Based on discussions with traffic engineers, it is believed that the main users of the bridge would be the residents in both C and E. Segobiano stated that having the requirement of the bridge based on a traffic study once Parcels C and E are platted would be best. The analysis could be based on an Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation. If the negatives of the bridge from an environmental standpoint outweigh the advantages we could address it at that time. If connectivity is more important than the environmental issues at that time, we could go in that direction as well. Moose shares a lot of concerns that Council members are concerned with. Segobiano assessed that if the bridge is an obligation without knowing what is going on in Parcels C and E that may not be the best thing for the environmental aspect.

Chuck Radovich, special legal counsel for the City, addressed the Committee. Radovich stated that since there is no concept plan or a preliminary plan for developments, there should be a trigger included in the agreement for the building of a bridge. Internal traffic design is going to be critical. A trigger point for requiring a developer to build an internal roadway system including a vehicular bridge over Mill Creek should be a part of the agreement. Radovich stated that if the trigger to build the bridge would be a traffic study based on mutually agreeable assumptions that included the access rights to Randall Road, density, and ADT’s, that could work. McGrath discussed the possibility of building the bridge and Mooseheart’s role in charging developments towards construction of the bridge. Segobiano stated that there will probably be an internal Moose impact fee for the bridge that would be escrowed. If the bridge is not constructed they will look at refunding the money in some way. The goal is to have the money available for the construction of the bridge, if needed.

Swanson shared for the Committee’s information that there are two parts in Article 22 that deal with traffic studies and streets. First, before any development occurs, the property owner is required to pay the City to conduct a traffic study. Second, there is a requirement for a preliminary street plan done by geographic sector. What it does not say is that the preliminary street plan needs to identify a future crossing location and street connection across Mill Creek. If we make the vehicular bridge optional, we still need to have a provision for the approach Community Development Committee August 8, 2011 Page 4 of 6 roadways as well as the location of a crossing. Wolff commented that the addition would best fit under Article 22, section e.

Motion: To recommend approve Ordinance 11-16: Mooseheart Annexation Agreement with added language in Article 22 section E regarding construction of a vehicular bridge over Mill Creek changed from a requirement to an option with the language for a trigger for when that option becomes a reality with said legal parties to figure out the language Maker: Wolff Second: Sparks

Discussion was made on the motion. Radovich stated that they would try to get the language ready for the next City Council meeting. If not, the language will be ready no later than the first City Council meeting in September. The trigger would be based upon traffic requirements for the construction of the bridge.

Roll Call Vote: Aye: Brown, Wolff, Sparks, Chanzit, Clark, and Stark Nay: Atac 6-1 Vote, 0 Absent, Motion carried.

5. Streetscape Project: Status and Finances (WRM 8/5/11) McGrath reported that staff has held discussions with Altamanu regarding streetscape options. McGrath distributed a memo from Altamanu to the Committee titled ‘To Assist the City in Making a Decision on Work to be Carried Out.’ McGrath discussed the memo including standard streetscape, hybrid streetscape, deluxe streetscape and the features of each element. He reported that staff is supportive of the Hybrid Streetscape with a higher level of materials and high flexibility. McGrath asserted that he is interested in doing things that are unique to our area, such as an arch on Wilson. Staff is looking for the level of improvements the Committee is interested in so they could create the budget. McGrath added that staff would like to get money to as many neighborhoods as possible.

Brown endorsed the Deluxe element, the Woonerf Streetscape with some possible alterations. To reduce the cost, it is possible to have no granite but use another material. The CDC discussed bringing something unique to River Street, closing River Street, leaving River Street open all the time, sharing street with traffic, parking, landscape, appropriating money to fix up the surrounding area, removing auto-centric focus and opening the area up to pedestrians. O’Brien also endorsed the Woonerf streetscape design. Stark commented that there is a lot of traffic in that area and she would not be supportive of the Woonerf design. She is apprehensive about taking away the traditional streetscape design. The CDC discussed traffic, pedestrian rights-of-way, and River Street businesses. McGrath stated that he will be meeting with the businesses tomorrow.

The Committee set the budget scope at two million dollars for River Street with the preferred scope being the Deluxe, Woonerf design. Community Development Committee August 8, 2011 Page 5 of 6

6. Ordinance 11-26: Amending Title 10 Zoning Code of the City Code (Drew Rackow 8/4/11) Strassman reported that over the past few months the PC has discussed potential additions and revisions to the City's Zoning Code. Some of the discussed revisions have been due to items staff has discovered in administering the code and others are efforts to better regulate the use and development of land in a clear and concise language.

The PC held public hearings on June 22nd and July 20th to take testimony for the proposed changes, and recommended approval of the changes on July 20th. During the second hearing, two representatives of Goodwill, Inc. asked for changes, relating to donation collection bins in parking lots. They explained to the Commission that many collection bins are placed by for- profit entities, and suggested more stringent standards be put in place for those entities. The Commission asked staff to evaluate whether such a distinction could be made. The City Attorney and staff have determined that as the uses are the same the City cannot adopt different regulations for nonprofit and for-profit facilities.

Strassman discussed the substantive proposed zoning code amendments with the Committee: side-load garages to extend 10ft in front of the residence, outdoor dining, recycling collection facilities, sign regulations, inspections for projects with building permits and without (such as landscape inspections). Sparks asked about garage sales tents. He would need more than one day to put the tent up. He suggested a seven day allowance. Sparks asserted that our setback requirements for garages restrict a lot of styles of houses. He would like to further discuss this topic to allow for more styles of houses. Brown agreed with Sparks and assessed that the setback requirements sets too many restrictions on home buyers. Frydendall suggested adding a setback from the sidewalk to prevent cars hanging over the sidewalk. Brown concluded that the Committee could give Jerry Swanson a list of items to revisit regarding garage setbacks. Atac requested more discussion be held on the tent regulations. Frydendall asked that the current law regarding tents also be discussed at the next meeting. Brown requested that the tent issue be addressed at the next meeting.

Renee Bowerman, 3961 Woodridge Court, Colgate Wisconsin, representing Goodwill, addressed the Committee. Bowerman distributed a letter addressed to the Plan Commission and an article from the Chicago Tribune titled ‘Drop-off Boxes not Equally Charitable.’ She reported that Goodwill has had a store in Batavia since 2001. The facility is a store and donation center. She would like the Committee to consider two points when contemplating the new ordinance: One, Goodwill does not have drop-boxes of this type, and two, a lot of the drop-boxes are for-profit and not for non-profit organizations. The common misconception is that the proceeds will help a charitable, mission based group and some do not. She explained that the proceeds from our stores are what funds our mission, provides opportunities for training and employment for those with disabilities and disadvantages.

Bowerman asked the Committee that when they are looking at the drafted regulations for unattended drop boxes to give careful consideration for the potential impact on not-for-profit organizations. She reported that many communities prohibit the drop-boxes completely, some consider not-for-profit differently than for-profit, consider for-profit drop-boxes as a conditional Community Development Committee August 8, 2011 Page 6 of 6 use, and some state regulations differentiate for-profit and not-for-profit organizations (such as in California). Dyrke Maricle, 2838 Sand Piper Trail, addressed the Committee. Maricle discussed repurposing products, the increased numbers of for-profit drop-boxes, and the potential impact from for-profit drop-boxes on donations to Goodwill. Bowerman stated that if for-profit drop- boxes are allowed, she asked for the City to raise the bar for standards towards drop-boxes. The CDC preferred that drop-boxes not be permitted in town due to overflow and aesthetic nature. Swanson shared that staff could remove the Administrative Use Permit requirement in all the districts. As a result, drop-boxes would not be permitted. The CDC asked staff to remove the Administrative Use Permit requirement in all districts. The CDC did not make a recommendation on Ordinance 11-26 as it will be revised according to the discussion and placed on the next meeting’s agenda.

7. Project Status Update Mayor Schielke reported that Golden Corral is going to court tomorrow.

Swanson reported that the public hearing regarding Chick-fil-A was continued to September 7 due to objection by the attorney that represents the association of Windmill Lakes

Strassman reported that he received an application for annexation of a single-lot property on Ellen Lane. The utilities are available but the property must be annexed in order to connect to City utilities. He requested the CDC authorize staff to begin negotiating the annexation agreement. The CDC gave this authorization and staff will move forward with an annexation agreement for the property.

8. Other There were no other items to discuss at this time.

9. Adjournment There being no other business to discuss, Chair Brown asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:10pm; Made by Wolff; Seconded by Sparks. Motion carried.

Minutes respectfully submitted by Jenny Austin-Smith.