Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 29, 2015 The City of DeKalb Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 29, 2015 in the City Council Chambers of the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Welsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Planning & Zoning Commission members present: Christina Atherton; Roger Ruehling; Matthew Crull; David Castro; Deborah Nier; Adam Katz, and Chairman Michael Welsh. Also present: Derek Hiland, Principal Planner, Dean Frieders, City Attorney, Jared Heyn, Planning and Zoning Intern, and Pat Klein, Administrative Associate, Ellen Divita, Community Development Director, Deputy Police Chief Wes Hoadley, Fire Chief Eric Hicks, and City Attorney Dean Frieders. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Welsh called for an approval of the agenda. Deborah Nier made a motion to amend the agenda to consider new business prior to old business. The motion was seconded by Matthew Crull and approved by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes CITIZEN COMMENTS None NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing on rezoning request by Dan Sears on behalf of D-N-J Properties, in order to convert the existing rooming house on 534 College Avenue into single and double occupancy apartments. Mr. Hiland stated the petitioner has requested to continue this request to May 13, 2015. Chair Welsh opened the Public Hearing. There were no speakers. Matthew Crull made a motion to continue the zoning request to the meeting of May 13, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Ms. Atherton and approved by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS Open and continue a public hearing on the rezoning request from MFR (Multiple Family Residential) to PDR (Planned Development Residential) and approval of preliminary and final development plans for the University Villages at 722 North Annie Glidden Road in DeKalb. Dean Frieders spoke regarding another public housing project nearby, Jericho Circle, in Aurora, IL and problems following demolition that resulted in a displaced resident filing a claim with Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He discussed dealings with HUD and the City of Aurora and the Aurora Housing Authority as an example of a public housing development being redeveloped at a lesser density by dispersing low income housing into different locations. Derek Hiland spoke regarding other examples of redevelopment that aimed to decentralize and redevelop with mixed income housing. These are public housing authorities, not private. Mr. Hiland spoke of the Choice Neighborhoods Program and grants. The City of DeKalb has unsuccessfully applied for these grants. This program aims to integrate high density, low income housing into the community. Mr. Frieders clarified the question before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The question is not to limit or alter the current use of the present property. Denial of the zoning request does not change the present use of the property. Approval of the zoning request does not guarantee that the property will continue as affordable housing. The City does not have the authority to mandate the use of the property as affordable housing. The question is to whether to allow the property to continue its current legal, non- conforming use or should it be converted to a planned unit development with a conforming use. Chair Welsh questioned the statement made that the zoning request does not decide whether the property continues as affordable housing and doesn’t the financing behind the request require the property to be affordable housing for the next 40 years? Mr. Frieders said that they have been provided with information from Security Properties regarding the Aurora settlement agreement and Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act (LIHPRA) agreements relating to Phase One and Phase Two of University Villages. These agreements impose use restrictions. The zoning controls the financing Security Property is seeking. LIHPRA requires the property to remain as affordable housing for the remaining useful life of the property. HUD can agree to mutually terminate this agreement. The existing LIHPRA agreements remain in effect regardless of the City’s zoning. Chair Welsh spoke of the use agreements in Aurora and the fifty year threshold of the useful life of University Villages. The present LIHPRA agreements with HUD have staggered terms out to 2040. Refinancing and redevelopment would result in new LIHPRA agreements with extended terms. Dean Frieders restated the zoning request before the commission – to rezone from MFR-2 to PD-2, and spoke of the LaSalle zoning factors at issue in regard to University Villages. Chair Welsh spoke of the Jericho Circle case in Aurora and said they had not received information in time to evaluate it but asked if it is pertinent. He also spoke of editorials in the Chronicle and clarified that any decision made on the zoning request will not alter the current use of the property. The current owners have a legal non-conforming use of the property. The request means, in the event of a disaster, the property could be rebuilt at the current non-conforming density; he cited the tornado in Fairdale as an example. Rezoning for the purpose of government financing would control future rebuilding in the case L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 of a disaster. He likes that the current maintenance issues being fixed. He wants the property to evolve into what’s best for the community. He would like Security Properties to obtain different financing that doesn’t require changes to ordinance. Mr. Katz agreed that this is a tough decision and doesn’t want to make a deal for a short-term fix and then be locked in for forty years. Mr. Castro also said that this is a difficult decision both for the short term and long term. He is concerned that he just received information that day. He spoke of the crimes per unit calls being higher than the rest of the City and the resident’s complaints regarding current conditions. He spoke of the variances requested by Security Properties and asked City Staff whether or not, if these plans were approved, the fire safety, police security, and overall well-being would be improved. Dean Frieders replied that the zoning changes do not control management of University Villages and it is difficult to know the impact of these changes. Fire Chief Eric Hicks agreed these changes are difficult to measure but the fire protection will improve with the upgrades such as upgraded alarm systems, interconnected smoke detectors, and fire stops. Mr. Castro again spoke regarding the density of subsidized housing and asked if other properties will want similar variances and stated the fact that the City wants to lessen density throughout the City. Chris Atherton also said this is a tough decision and she’s concerned that citizens from the surrounding areas have not commented regarding this and she is most concerned with the density variance. Mathew Crull said the issue is the financing. This can set precedent for future development and other low income housing developments. He knows University Villages needs the improvements. Deborah Nier said the improvements are good and needed and the residents support these. However, we can’t ignore the precedence it sets. There are more than 20 other multifamily developments in DeKalb that have more than 12 units per acres and she questioned if this will diminish the quality of the Community. She is also concerned with the parking variance. Chair Welsh spoke of the give and take regarding the variances but is worried about waiving all these. Parking is an important issue. We need consistent quality. The improvements being offered will not last beyond approximately 10 years; he is worried beyond that. Eighteen units per acre is 50% more than current code. University Villages is a desirable property. Mr. Castro questioned the alternative. The current code is desirable but if the zoning request is denied, it will continue status quo. The residents have legitimate complaints. Denying this request continues the current conditions for 30 or 40 years. He would like to hear any realistic alternatives. Chair Welsh said that there were 30 other people prepared to buy this property, possibly with other financing. There has been a lot of time spent on this. The City of DeKalb is prepared to fix, or require to have fixed, problems at University Villages. Other developments that have been denied variances have come back after being sent away. There are possible deviations to the current code but the code is there for a reason we still believe in. The ramifications of 50% more units per acre do not make sense to him or the community. Mr. Ruehling spoke about the density currently being 17.99 per acre. This will not change except in the event of a disaster. Denial of the variance would then require rebuilding at 12 units per acre. The setbacks, L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 the signage, and parking would also be affected. He spoke of the UDO regarding these and asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission were supposed to ignore all of this. Chair Welsh thought it was important to note that they have just received additional information regarding the agreements in Aurora and felt it would be important to read this before voting. Dean Frieders talked about working with the petitioner and the LIHPRA agreements were not received until Monday afternoon and could not be included in the packets. Chair Welsh said it is important to know what the LIHPRA agreement says as it will affect the development in perpetuity. Security Properties is offering a lot in terms of remodeling and social programs, but there is no guarantee they will be there for the next ten or twenty years. He asked if the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted to review the new information before voting. Ms. Atherton asked for clarification regarding the current LIHPRA agreement. Dean Frieders clarified the different agreements now in place for different phases of University Villages. He discussed the suitability of the property for the present zoning purpose as well as the sought after zoning purpose. LIHPRA agreements are for the “reasonable life” of the property. Ms. Atherton asked if HUD can terminate the LIHPRA agreement. Mr. Frieders said that yes, it is possible the agreement can be terminated if the property is no longer suitable for its present use. Mr. Castro said that his mind is made up; no further reading will change it. Mr. Crull also did not see a need for further deliberations. Chair Welsh and Attorney Frieders discussed the necessity of either a positive or negative motion regarding an agreement toward a Planned Unit Development (PUD); the motion needs to approve or deny the request. Chris Atherton asked if the Commission needed to approve or deny the entire request, or vote on each item separately. Chair Welsh recommended taking each item individually, beginning with number seven and working backwards. Item seven, Principle Building Setbacks, was addressed. It was noted this only applied to interior roadways. The public right of ways are currently UDO compliant. Ms. Nier made a motion to approve Item #7. The motion was seconded by Chris Atherton and approved by voice vote. Chair Welsh stated that a PUD would erase the need for voting on Item #6, one building per lot. Item #5, Landscaping was discussed. It was agreed that the landscaping needed more maintenance, such as trimming, removals and additions. L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 Chris Atherton made a motion to accept Item #5, Landscaping, with the City’s recommendation for additional maintenance. The motion was seconded by Matthew Crull and approved by voice vote. Item #4, Signage was discussed. Security Properties would like to maintain the current signage. Adam Katz made a motion to accept Item #4, Signage. The motion was seconded by Ms. Atherton and approved by voice vote. Chair Welsh discussed Item #3, Lighting. Present lighting at University Villages is twenty or twenty-five feet tall. The Maximum height allowed in the UDO is fifteen. Lighting inadequacies in relation to the height of the poles were discussed. Derek Hiland spoke of a variety of problems including trees, and bulb outages as well as the proposed new walkways where additional lighting will need to be added. Mr. Hiland clarified that the waiver was for the height of the poles. The height of new poles and the various options of new lighting were discussed. The motion could be to accept the variance for new lighting, or to make new lighting conform to present code. The height of the poles was discussed both in regard to candles and disturbing upper apartments as well as the addition of new poles that will be needed due to the addition of new walkways. Not every 25’ pole needs to be replaced. Mr. Hiland spoke of the photo measure plat and the height of the pole determining the candles. New improvements may need additional lighting that is undetermined as yet. This can be revisited. Dean Frieders said there are three issues before the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1. Is the height of the existing poles acceptable? 2. Is there a preference on the height of new poles? 3. Is there a direction for the City to evaluate the future need for new lighting? Mr. Castro made a motion to approve #3, Lighting, accepting the existing 25’ poles with the condition that new light fixtures would be 15’ which is within City code; and there be an agreement where Security Properties and City of DeKalb Police agree on new light fixtures where needed. Roger Ruehling seconded the motion. Matthew Crull questioned if the existing light fixtures were grandfathered and if the new lights being 15’ and the old lights being 25’ would be unattractive. Dean Frieders clarified this was part of the whole zoning request and would be difficult to separate. It was further clarified that additional, new lighting would be 15’, however, if a present 25’ light were destroyed, it would be replaced at a height up to 25’ in order to keep the existing light pattern. The motion was approved by voice vote. L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 Chair Welsh spoke of the zoning variance #2, Parking Ratio; University Villages is approximately 500 spaces short of meeting the UDO. Discussion ensued regarding land banking for future parking additions if the need arises, and how the need is determined by future parking studies. An 80% parking use would trigger the additional parking. The parking variance was compared to University Plaza. Mr. Castro clarified that there was land available for use as additional parking. Chair Welsh spoke of whether the future parking additions would be piecemealed or added in entirety. Parking in the northwest quadrant of DeKalb is at a premium and the waiver would be for perpetuity. Ms. Atherton said that a condition can be added to ensure the availability of future parking. Mr. Castro, Deborah Nier, and Dean Frieders spoke of parking stickers and parking fees that could regulate and monitor residents’ and visitors’ parking. Chair Welsh said this is setting precedence and questioned how the development’s management can control the parking of its residents. Mr. Castro said that this waiver is not necessarily a bad idea just because it does not meet code. Ms. Nier spoke of the similarity with University Plaza and said there needs to be plans for future parking requirements. Chair Welsh spoke of a sunset clause so this could be further discussed in the future to see how it is working and pointed out that the University Villages would be sacrificing green space for parking. Mr. Crull said that zoning variances #1, Lot Size, and #2, Parking Ratio, are linked and will affect each other in the future. The density and its effect on the parking ratio were further discussed. Ms. Nier made a motion to maintain the current parking spaces with the condition of adding a land bank for future parking needs to be determined yearly by a parking study completed by Security Properties or the current Management. Adam Katz seconded the motion. It was clarified that the 80% parking threshold would trigger the addition of all required parking at one time but would need to return to the City Council for final approval. The motion was approved by voice vote. Chair Welsh spoke of the zoning waiver #1, Lot Size. This waiver would grandfather the existing density until the inability to continue with the current purpose. Matthew Crull clarified that approval will allow the current density of 17.99 units per acre to continue for the life of the HUD agreement or denial of the waiver will still allow the 17.99 units per acres until the site is demolished or no longer usable. L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 Mr. Frieders said that the 17.99 units per acres would continue until the property would be rezoned, unrelated to the HUD agreement or the transfer of ownership. Adam Katz made the motion to deny the variance regarding density. Chair Welsh seconded the motion for purpose of discussion. The current density was discussed including continuing the density beyond the life of the building, and would a fire in two units result in a change to the zoning or is it proportionate? It was clarified that 50% (280 units) would need to be destroyed before the new zoning would apply, however, it would be separated by phase, and, for example, 50% destruction of one phase would trigger rezoning. Chair Welsh reiterated that this waiver is driven by the financing. David Castro spoke of the fact that City Council will have the final word on this. It is a difficult decision that cannot be based on the occurrence of a disaster. The problems need to be solved now. Ms. Atherton asked for clarification of density bonus in the packet. Derek Hiland explained density bonus and how up to a 20% bonus to the required density is available dependent on unique design or amenities such as open space, bike paths, landscaping, etc. The current proposal was discussed in regards to density bonus availability. It was agreed there could be up to a 13.8% bonus with the redevelopment plans, but this would still not meet the current density code of 12 units per acre. Chair Welsh reiterated that the waiver goes against what the current code is. If there was a reason for it other than the financing he could consider it. Other owners and landlords that have different financing were discussed. Security Properties could find other financing, the current owners could improve the property, or another buyer could come back with other financing that would not require these variances. Chair Welsh spoke of fairness and not giving one buyer preference over another. The 8 LaSalle Zoning Factors were further discussed as well as the development of the present code over past years and the reluctance to have HUD financing dictate changes to the code. Adam Katz restated his motion to reject the waiver #1, Lot Size, regarding density, meaning a yes vote would deny the request. A vote was taken with votes as follows: Katz – Yes, Crull – Yes, Nier – No, Ruehling – Yes, Castro – No, Atherton – No, Chair Welsh – Yes; Four yes, three no. Dean Frieders suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion regarding the zoning request as a whole. He said that there was much relevant discussion made including Findings of Fact that should be included in the final document the Planning and Zoning Commission adopts. Feedback on the individual waivers will be helpful to the City Council’s decision. It was agreed to review the Findings of Fact at the next meeting before presentation to the City Council. L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915 Chris Atherton made a motion to bring Findings of Fact back to the next meeting, May 13th. The motion was seconded by Deborah Nier and approved by voice vote. Dean Frieders requested a final vote regarding the rezoning request from “MFR" Multi-Family Residential, to “PD-R” Planned Development Residential. Roger Ruehling moved to approve the request to rezone the property at 722 N. Annie Glidden Road known as University Village from Multi-Family Residential to Planned Development Residential. Mr. Ruehling withdrew his motion following clarification of the density waiver. Dean Frieders restated that the motion should state the intent, either approving or denying the rezoning request. It was agreed to bring the Findings of Fact back in two weeks. As the meeting had not been extended, there were no considerations, and no future considerations. The next meeting is May 13th. ADJOURNMENT Deborah Nier made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Chris Atherton and approved by voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Pat Klein, Recorder Administrative Associate L:/PLANNING/2015/PZC Minutes_042915