City Council

MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL CITY OF DEKALB January 29, 2013 The City Council of DeKalb, Illinois held a special meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 in the Council Chambers of the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. Notice was given and the meeting was called pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2, Section 2.05 of the Municipal Code of the City of DeKalb, Illinois. Mayor Povlsen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL: Assistant City Manager Espiritu called the roll and the following members of City Council were present: Mayor Kris Povlsen, Alderman David Jacobson, Alderman Tom Teresinski, Alderman Kristen Lash, Alderman Ronald Naylor, Alderman David Baker and Alderman Monica O’Leary. Absent was Alderman Brendon Gallagher. Also present were: Mark Biernacki, City Manager; Rudy Espiritu, Assistant City Manager; T.J. Moore, Public Works Director; Derek Hiland, Principal Planner; Joel Maurer, Assistant Director Public Works Engineering/Transportation; Jeff Birtell, I&T Technician; and Tammey Higgins, Deputy City Clerk. Additional participants present were: David Patzelt, President, ShoDeen, Inc.; Roger Dahlstrom, Assistant Director, NIU – Center for Governmental Studies; Shannon Sohl, Research Associate, NIU – Center for Governmental Studies; Dr. James Briscoe, Superintendent, DeKalb School District 428; and Cindy Capek, Executive Director, DeKalb Park District. B. CONSIDERATION ITEM: 1. FURTHER DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF IRONGATE OF DEKALB SUBDIVISION AND ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. Mr. Biernacki presented the information submitted for Council consideration and direction. He stated that items may be addressed out of order in deference to participants from other authorities. He advised Council that in addition to his memo packet, they also had a plan submittal packet from ShoDeen entitled “December Submittal” and a document entitled “City of DeKalb Housing Over/Under Supply Overview for the Special Meeting of the DeKalb City Council January 29, 2013” provided by the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies. Mayor Povlsen stated that it was his hope that ShoDeen would benefit from very good positive discussions and leave with some direction in completing the plan. Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Dahlstrom and Ms. Sohl referenced the handout regarding a Housing Over/Under Study and explained the data. Council asked questions and discussed the Study provided. Mayor Povlsen advised that the Council would begin considerations with Items 4 and 5 with respect to the School District and Park District representatives. Mr. Biernacki brought Council’s attention to Item 4.a. (Impact Fees – Adjustments to the current impact fee schedule). He summarized the paragraph and advised that Option B of the Irongate Input Fee Adjustment Alternative attachment was staff’s recommendation. He advised he had shared the attachment with both the School District and the Park District, but had not yet received any feedback or comments from either entity. Mr. Patzelt addressed Council and advised that the request for reduction of the impact fee was related to EAV discussions with the School District based on past years’ sales and few to no fees collected. He stated that to encourage sales, it was necessary to reduce costs – with the approach to reduce the impact fee as low as possible. He added that if sales accelerate; impact fees in sales prices can be re-opened or impact fees could be tied to number of students and sales rates occurring. He stated that this approach could/should be offered to all, not just ShoDeen. Questions were asked regarding impact fees. Dr. Briscoe commented on this project being a unique process for the School District. He shared that the School District has three (3) separate issues pending with this proposed project which relate to: if annexed, the choice of a land or cash exchange; addressing the Macom/ShoDeen agreement; and the impact fee. Dr. Briscoe stated that the School Board is willing to discuss the lowering of the impact fee amount with ShoDeen and the City. He further commented on the EAV dropping significantly according to the Assessor’s office. Ald. Baker requested a clarification relating to the acreage in the land or cash exchange. Ms. Capek addressed Council. She advised that the Park District’s Board was scheduled to meet on February 7, 2013 and had not yet discussed the impact fee issue and could not comment on the issue. Mr. Biernacki then asked the Council if they agreed with staff’s recommendation. Ald. Naylor requested clarification if the fifty percent (50%) reduction was across the board. Mr. Biernacki responded with clarification on each different group’s basis (City/School Board/Park District). Ald. Baker brought up previous discussion of lots being exempt from impact fees and the effect of competition to ShoDeen. He also commented on other approaches to bring in buyers, and potential demand from current renters wanting to be buyers. He stated that whatever Council can do to make this happen, something must be done to balance. Ald. Teresinski shared his concerns regarding capital dedication and incentives; student generation; neighborhood school in area ($14M - $15M); forgiveness of incentives –and no impact to any other existing land/lot owners. Mr. Biernacki responded with clarification of  Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 3 of 7 existence of 300 buildable lots. Mayor Povlsen shared his concern regarding what is appropriate for a community of this size. Mr. Patzelt shared that the “sweet spot” pricing for ShoDeen was $250,000 and up. He added that ShoDeen is the type of developer that doesn’t build and wait for buyers to come. ShoDeen’s approach is to build as sold in increments, keeping approximately one year of supply in the plan. He advised that the first phase may be thirty (30) lots; this amount will expand as sales progress. Ald. Baker commented on the $250,000+ sale amount, that taxes would be double; and added that the City could consider giving up all incentives if a guarantee was received on the price of homes. He also commented on potential direct competition with other developers. Mr. Patzelt responded with ShoDeen’s belief of the gap of a different type of product within the City; homes for people who do not have children. Further comments and discussion followed relating to additional clarification of reduction value; concerns regarding loss of fee and impact on City resources; School District getting monies and the City “losing” monies; additional responsibilities assumed by the City; the logic of the requested reduction; and advisement by Mr. Patzelt that ShoDeen would be responsible for maintaining infrastructure of development for one year after date of acceptance. Mayor Povlsen advised he would support the fee reduction and polled Council members. Ald. Lash stated she was not willing to support. Ald. Teresinski commented on numerous aspects of requested reduction and advised he would support for 300 homes with seven (7) years at the longest. Ald. Jacobson shared his opinion on different aspects of the reduction request and advised that he was not willing to support it. Ald. Baker stated his concerns and advised that he would support the reduction request. Ald. Naylor provided comments that included concern that initial discussion was for a thirty (30%) reduction and now it was fifty percent (50%) and that he was not willing to support the request. Ald. O’Leary advised she was willing to support the request. Mayor Povlsen stated he did not have any input from Ald. Gallagher and that this put the response at four (4) aldermen for the request and three (3) aldermen against the request. Mayor Povlsen advised he believed this provided for a super majority on the issue. Further discussion ensued regarding concerns on issue. Mr. Biernacki brought Council’s attention to the next item to be addressed: Item 5.a. (School and Park Land Dedications – Revised plans are pending). He provided the background for the item. Mr. Patzelt started a PowerPoint presentation and provided the background on the modifications that had been made to the different prints from prior submittal. He commented on the multiple items that had been addressed (Park District not wanting parks under 2 acres, School District/Park District land structure (8 acres, 17.3 acres). Ms. Capek commented on the modifications made to the plan. She thanked the City for the land/cash ordinance. She stated that she felt general agreement on sites had been reached; there was just some “tweaking” to complete. Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 4 of 7 Extensive discussion, clarification, and commentary by all parties followed regarding aspects of sizing of parks, siting locations, amenities, bike paths, responsibility ownership, and maintenance concerns. Mayor Povlsen advised that concerns obviously needed resolution. Ms. Capek advised that issues would be discussed at the scheduled Park District Board meeting on February 7, 2013. Mayor Povlsen then stated that his prior statement that a super majority being reached on Item 4.a. was incorrect and only a majority had been reached (4-3) and the issue required a super majority vote. Ald. Baker polled the nays to the issue and was advised that Ald. Lash and Ald. Jacobson did not support any reduction, while Ald. Naylor advised he would support a thirty percent (30%) reduction only. Dr. Briscoe addressed the Council and advised that a concern for the Board is the acreage north of the school. Considerable discussion followed relating to site selection; potential for expansion; ordinance requirements; park styles; developer experience; and personal observations. No consensus was reached. Mr. Biernacki addressed Item 1.a. (Density (i.e. number of dwelling units per acre) Density of single family and townhouse areas), and provided background on the information for consideration. Ald. Lash inquired about the background on the December submittal density level; it appeared to have more townhomes than previously submitted. Mr. Patzelt advised this would be addressed under a different item. Ald. Naylor requested clarification as to the definition of density calculation. Mr. Biernacki advised that the calculation had netted out right-of-way value, but all else was included. Ald. Naylor advised that the prior ShoDeen submittal had a reflected a value of 4.2. Mr. Biernacki responded that he would provide the calculation. Ald. Naylor asked if a referenced parcel of sixteen (16) acres had been included in the land calculation. Mr. Biernacki advised that it had been included. Ald. Naylor shared concerns that some tracts are fairly sizable (church tracts). Mr. Biernacki advised he would provide the information relating to the concern. Ald. Teresinski commented on what was included in the density methodology and presented a concern that when the ordinance is adopted, that the City is clear and the proposed project is consistent and the City is in compliance. Mr. Hiland advised that the proposed project was in compliance and provided language from the ordinance. Ald. Naylor restated his concern regarding the large tracts of land. Mr. Biernacki responded that the numbers would be provided. Ald. Lash asked how this site compared to previous sites with townhomes and large lots. She stated that when she removed the eastern portion of the proposed project, she arrived at a 4.84 density level. Mr. Hiland responded that the practice was consistent with the overall approach. Ald. Lash then inquired as to what other previous projects were similar to the proposed project. Mr. Biernacki responded that density is important, but that the City needed to guard against regulating itself into mediocrity. No consensus was reached. Additional information was to be supplied by Mr. Biernacki.  Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Biernacki brought Item 1.b. (Density (i.e. number of dwelling units per acre), Density of second story apartments in commercial area), to Council’s attention. He inquired as to whether Council wanted apartments at all in the proposed project. Ald. Naylor inquired as to when the apartments were added. Mr. Biernacki advised that they had always been in the plan. Ald. Naylor responded that there should be no apartments. Ald. Teresinski commented on his understanding that some apartments were planned above the proposed commercial buildings. Mr. Patzelt responded that there had always been apartments above the commercial buildings along with stand-alone apartment buildings. He stated that the stand-alone buildings had been removed, but commercial space apartments were left in the plan. He asked if it was Council’s desire to removal all apartments from the plan. Council consensus was that no apartments would be in the plan. Mr. Biernacki brought Item 1.c. (Density (i.e. number of dwelling units per acre), Density of senior housing area) to Council’s attention. Mayor Povlsen stated that he understood the density number, especially in light that there would be no impact on infrastructure. Discussion followed concerning P.E. (population equivalent) value, definition of senior housing and the implementation of units into the project. Mr. Patzelt advised that the parcel would be sold to an operator; ShoDeen would not operate the facility. Ald. Naylor asked to confirm what the zoning would be for this parcel. Mr. Biernacki advised it was PD-R. Mr. Biernacki addressed Council with Item 2.a. (Land Uses – Townhomes). He summarized that from comments provided through the evening Council feels the proposed percentage amount is too high and asked what percentage Council supports. Mr. Patzelt commented on multiple aspects of the townhome section of the plan; limiting townhome percentage to ten percent (10%); the direction to remove all apartments from the plan; discussion with staff to modify product to a front-loading design; splitting location of townhomes into two (2) different locations, some by the school; extension of Normal Road and type of product to be located in that area. With regard to the Normal Road issue, he advised Council that ShoDeen was open to either single family or townhomes. Extensive interactive discussion followed encompassing all issues covered by Mr. Biernacki’s memo under Item 2. Land Uses. Issues discussed included pricing structure of townhomes and market competition; potential use of alleys; 55+ market targeting aspects; possible dedication of unusable area to School District; Normal Road siting and extension suggestions, concerns on number of driveways depending on single-family product or townhome product; definition of buyers for townhomes; construction scheduling approach; property becoming rental concerns; lot dimensions; potential of City assisting in extension of Normal Road; possibility of waiving City Road Fee if ShoDeen builds the road (no sidewalks or utilities [except for stormwater]); need for resolution of Normal Road extension issue. Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Ald. Baker left the meeting at 8:50 PM. Mr. Biernacki reaffirmed Council’s preference regarding Land Uses and asked if townhome density is to be ten percent (10%); resolution of road issue, locations, timing of construction, and removal of any apartments from plan. Mr. Patzelt advised Council that ShoDeen’s plan was trying to bring a different philosophy of quality of homes and subdivisions; not based on lot size, and he was disappointed in this not being envisioned by Council. He advised that Council was welcome to come and see prior ShoDeen products. Discussion followed relating to pricing structure for homes; concern that total number of homes be reduced; types of product able to be built on different lot sizes; possible tighter mix of lot sizes. Ald. Naylor inquired as to the phasing of construction/development of the proposed project. Mr. Patzelt responded that it would be near the high school or northeastern area by Bethany. He confirmed that the eastern section would be the primary location as the utilities are in place in that area. He advised that the 60/70/80 foot lots would be the first to be developed and that ShoDeen’s approach was to go in small parcels. He shared that proceeding to the west side of the proposed project would involve installing infrastructure and other utilities that would head to the northeast of the proposed project. Discussion ensued regarding reducing the number of 50-foot (50’) lots with a proposed number of 250. Ald. Jacobson brought up a concern about higher density. Mr. Patzelt clarified how utilities would need to be implemented. Discussion followed concerning 50-foot (50’) lots not being built first, utilities locations, and sanitary services running north. Mr. Patzelt advised that he would re-work the plan to see if Council’s suggestions were feasible. Mr. Biernacki recapped that utility availability drives building in the northeast area, and that no 50-foot (50’) lots would be built until a certain ratio of larger lots were built. No consensus was provided. Response from ShoDeen needed after re-working plan from discussions. Mr. Biernacki brought Item 3.a. (Street System – North/South Collector Streets) to the Council’s attention. He advised that the direction requested from Council is if two (2) north-south collectors streets are a desirable design feature for this subdivision. Mr. Patzelt referenced Sheet 7 of 11 of the ShoDeen handout and explained what modifications had been implemented since the last submittal to Council. Mayor Povlsen commented on the concern of “cutting through” traffic. Ald. Teresinski supported the concern of not creating a raceway for school traffic. Ald. Jacobson suggested  Special Meeting January 29, 2013 Page 7 of 7 tying Pride into Normal. Mr. Patzelt offered potential connections for consideration. Discussion followed on connecting Pride to different potential streets to move traffic. Ald. Naylor suggested a traffic study of the development and surrounding roads be commissioned. Mr. Patzelt advised that this study had been done. Ald. Naylor then suggested that a consultant be brought in to review; Mr. Patzelt advised that had been done when the school was annexed to the City. Mr. Biernacki advised that he had the study; Mr. Hiland added that Joel Maurer had the study. Mr. Patzelt advised that the Engineering Staff had reviewed access points to the development. Ald. Naylor inquired about drainage issues and the impact beyond the subdivision’s tract of land. Mr. Patzelt advised that a stormwater study had been done, but that it hadn’t been done all the way to the Kishwaukee River and inquired as to what Ald. Naylor was seeking. Ald. Naylor responded that he was concerned about potential effect on downstream flow volumes. Mr. Patzelt advised that the subdivision plan was required to release water slower per the ordinance. Ald. Jacobson brought up concern regarding Pride Drive being un-impeded to Veterans – with no exit. Discussion on the layout of Pride and Normal and access to a release followed. Mr. Biernacki reiterated the two north-south collectors. More discussion was held regarding the road configuration. Mayor Povlsen requested clarification be provided for the issues. C. ADJOURNMENT: Ald. Lash moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Ald. O’Leary. Motion carried on voice vote. Mayor Povlsen declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. _____________________________________ TAMMEY M. HIGGINS, Deputy City Clerk Approved by City Council February 11, 2013