Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular MeetingDeKalb, IL · June 15, 2016
Minutes
MINUTES
CITY OF DEKALB
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
6:00 PM
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on June 15, 2016 at City of
DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth St. in the Council Chambers.
Chair Christina Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m.
ROLL CALL
Derek Hiland called the roll and the following members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission were present: Chair Christina Atherton, David Castro, Deborah Nier,
Matthew Crull, Adam Katz.
Members absent at roll call were: Roger Ruehling, and Jerry Wright.
Also present from the City of DeKalb were: Principal Planner Jo Ellen Charlton, Planner
Derek Hiland, and Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions)
Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the agenda for June 15, 2016. A motion
to approve was made by D. Nier. The motion was seconded by D. Castro and
approved by voice vote
CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record)
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the minutes for May 25, 2016. A motion
to approve was made by A. Katz. The motion was seconded by D. Nier and approved
by voice vote
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 2 of 10
1. Public Hearing on a Special Use Request for a conversion of a Single Family
Residence to a Two Family Residence located at 302 S. Third Street, DeKalb
Illinois.
D. Hiland presented a summary of the location of the property in question, at 302 S.
Third Street, near the corner of Franklin and Second, at the southeast corner. The
property is currently zoned Residential Conservation District, RC-1. He explained the
intent of establishing the RC-1 zoning, which occurred about eight years ago, to
preserve the original residential use of the property. City staff cataloged the underlying
land use of each property within the district. The current cataloged use of this property
is a single-family residence.
D. Hiland stated that he has spoken to Jayne Youngquist, the contract purchaser of the
property, and the current property owner, and he has researched City records of the
property. He stated that while the property was clearly used in the past as two units, the
property has not been used as two units for approximately five or six years. He found no
City records, permits, or water billing for two units, so the City has no evidence that this
property is a legal two-family residence in the neighborhood.
Citizens in the neighborhood responded to the proposal with letters in support and
against the proposal. Two citizens, on from each side, have requested the continuation
of this item for two weeks to allow the two citizens to provide testimony, one of which is
the current property owner and the other from a neighbor.
Mr. Hiland received a phone call asking if the property is located in a Historic District.
He confirmed it is located in the Huntley Park Historic District.
The staff report presents two recommendations to the Commission: (1) to continue the
matter for two weeks or (2) to deny the special use request to return the property to two-
family status. Chair Atherton asked Mr. Hiland if the recommendation to continue the
matter was due to the fact that not everyone was able to be present at this meeting. He
confirmed that to be true and recommended opening the public hearing and then
continuing the public hearing at a specific future date for example in two weeks. This
would also allow for questions that are raised at this hearing to be answered prior to a
vote.
Chair Atherton opened the public comment period at 6:07 p.m.
Jayne Youngquist, the petitioner, lives in Genoa and spoke about her petition. She said
she personally spoke to the property owners within the block and found that only one
person objected, the owner of a multi-unit property. She reported that she spoke to an
employee at Faranda’s Banquet Hall that used to live in the home as a duplex. There
may a history of problem tenants in the past. She had signatures of support from within
the block. She said she thought the City actually has more control over rental properties
than single-family homes. She stated that she cannot be present in two weeks if her
request is continued to the next meeting. She stated that she worked hard to meet the
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 3 of 10
deadline for application and does not believe the matter should be continued.
Louise Calderon of 308 S. Third St. spoke on behalf of her husband as well as herself.
They are not in support of this application. She stated that she had experience when the
property was a two-unit rental and was concerned because a lot of people lived there
even though the units are small. She expressed concern about the number of people
who would be allowed by ordinance to live in the units
Jerry Wahlstrom 311 Ridge Dr., realtor involved in the listing and selling of this property.
He stated he has never participated in a special use permit petition. A family of siblings
owns the property in question. Mr. Wahlstrom expressed his belief that the two-unit use
does not need to be reestablished since it has always been used as a two-unit property
since the current owners purchased it in 1969, and probably even longer. The current
owners are growing older and no longer wish to be in the business of renting out
property, which is why they are selling it.
Mr. Wahlstrom reported that he spoke with D. Hiland about the survey that was
conducted to determine what the legal uses of properties were at the time of
establishing the RC-1 zoning. Mr. Wahlstrom pointed out that the house has two front
doors and the units are divided down the middle of the house. He suggested that a
search of the number of water meters, of which there is one like many other duplexes,
may have led to the estimated determination that the property was single-family. He
was of the opinion that a physical inspection of the building could not have been made
at the time that the RC-1 zoning was instituted.
Mr. Wahlstrom speculated that current sellers of the property in question did not come
in to contest their RC-1 use because either (1) they did not receive the notice to
respond or (2) they did not understand the notice, so they did not protest the incorrect
use. He pointed to text in backup material that states if the property can be shown it was
legally established prior to being zoned RC-1 and has been continuously a two-unit
dwelling, it could qualify as a non-conforming use and be allowed to continue without a
special use permit. He also pointed to a passage in the backup material that states it is
likely that the configuration as a two-family dwelling was established legally. Now
because of a lack of response on the part of the seller to contest the zoning change, it
was automatically assumed to be a one-family dwelling. He cited in the backup material
that the property had two electric meters, two gas meters, and one water meter. He
reported that he has never seen two gas meters at the property. He suggested that the
same kind of error could have been made when the RC-1 zoning was established, as
more than 70 property owners objected to their initial RC-1 cataloged use.
Mr. Wahlstrom reported that if the unit does not continue as a two-family, Ms.
Youngquist will likely not be the buyer, and the seller’s family may need to leave it
empty, try to rent it out, or sell it to be demolished and rebuilt or as a single-family
dwelling. He stated there is nothing in the UDO to provide for corrections to the original
RC-1 land use determination. He explained that this is not a situation in which an owner
of a single-family home wants to turn it into a duplex, as this is already a duplex.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 4 of 10
Brian Morsch, 404 S. Third Street, lives a few blocks away from the property. He is in
support of the petitioner’s request. He is one of the facilitators of the DeKalb Rental
Association with many years of experience with rental properties. He has been a
landlord of property in the area since 1978 and believes the property has always been a
two-unit. He was present at the RC-1 rezoning hearings. He recalled that back then, Mr.
Hiland and Director Rassmussen instructed property owners to declare the number of
units in their homes, and if there was more than one, it would be exempt. He stated that
renters do not make bad neighbors, rather the landlord management style affects the
relationship with the other neighbors. He supports Ms. Youngquist purchasing the
property and using it as a two-unit.
Louise Calderon spoke again. She stated she was concerned that not everyone in the
neighborhood was notified of the petitioner’s special use permit request; she did not
receive a notice and lives next door to the property. She and her family got along well
with previous tenants. She said she believed there are fewer problems if one family
rather than two families live in a home.
Jerry Wahlstrom asked D. Hiland whether the citizen response letters he received
requested explicitly that the hearing to be postponed. D. Hiland reported that property
owner Judith Sulliver’s letter specifically requested a postponement until after June 19th
due to her traveling out of state. The other request for postponement was verbal from
one of the current property owners.
Chairman Atherton turned to the Commissioners for questions, comments, concerns, or
questions.
M. Crull verified with D. Hiland that of the two individuals requesting the hearing be
postponed, one was in favor of approving the special use permit, the other was against
approval. A discussion among the Commissions and D. Hiland of whether a
continuance was necessary and what date it would be scheduled.
M. Crull expressed appreciation of citizen’s concerns about new renters causing
problems in a neighborhood; however, that same issue can occur with new owners in a
neighborhood as well.
A. Katz stated he was in favor of moving forward with a decision and in favor of
approving the petition since Ms. Youngquist would be living in the property and able to
manage the renter herself. He agreed with Mr. Wahlstrom and Mr. Morsch’s support of
approving the special request.
D. Castro asked if there is any legal issue that needs to be addressed. He asked if this
property has been a single-family residence at all, given the history of the RC-1 zoning.
He asked if only one unit of a two-unit home has been occupied for some time if it is
reverts to single-family.
D. Hiland explained that the property was likely two units at one point in time, before
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 5 of 10
RC-1 zoning was created. The survey of the neighborhood when RC-1 was created not
only reviewed water billing records but at least five City staff members went on foot and
in cars looked at approximately 1500 to 2000 parcels of land. The RC-1 zoning is
unique because it works to preserve the original residential use of the property. There
are essentially two scenarios whereby two-unit properties are created: (1) duplexes that
were originally built as two units with obvious two-unit exterior features and (2)
properties that are were originally single-family and converted to two-family by including
a fire separation in a common space or locking a door and putting drywall behind it and /
or other means.
D. Hiland voiced agreement with the Robert Hupp’s response in the staff report. The
first part of the survey of RC-1 property uses was a walk-through the neighborhood and
searching for records such as leases. The second step was reviewing water and refuse
pickup billing records; a property may have one water meter for more than one unit, but
refuse pickup should reflect the number of units. The third step was referencing the Polk
Directories, which the property location, owner names, how long the owners have lived
in the property, and phone numbers during the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ’90s. D. Hiland reported
that he started with 1978 and looked through several years of directories through the
‘80s and ‘90s, and found only one directory listed a half-unit at the property in question.
The RC-1 zoning requires the continual use in the two-unit capacity or as a special use
which approved would allow the property to return to a previous use since the property
has been vacant or not used as a two-unit for a period of time.
D. Hiland told the Commission that it was their decision whether or not to recommend
approval of Ms. Youngquist’s special use permit application to legally establish the
property as a two-unit again.
D. Castro restated that this property is located in the Huntley Park Historic District. He
asked how that affects the property. D. Hiland responded he was not aware of any
affect upon the zoning. If a building permit application were submitted, the Landmark
Commission would be called upon to review it. He stated that if the Commission would
like the Landmark Commission to review this special use permit request, they could
engage the Landmark Commission, although they have not been involved in a matter
like this in the past.
D. Nier asked if the Landmark Commission had received notification of the special use
request. D. Hiland replied that they had not. He explained the responsibilities of the
Landmark Commission, which oversaw establishing the two historic districts. The
Landmark Commission also reviews all building permits for properties within the historic
districts to consider whether and what kind of impact a building permit may have upon
the character of the building and the district. D. Nier confirmed with D. Hiland that the
Landmark Commission is not involved with type of use determinations.
D. Nier asked about the survey details for RC-1. D. Hiland replied that eight
neighborhoods with 1500 to 2000 properties were surveyed. After hearings were held
and the City Council voted on the RC-1 zoning establishment, City staff notified property
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 6 of 10
owners again to offer them a last chance to object to their underlying land use catalog
determination. D. Nier stated that the property owners had multiple opportunities to
object. D. Hiland reported that at least three letters were sent to each property owner
notifying them of their property’s proposed zoning change, and anyone who came with
an objection that was verified was allowed to change their property’s cataloged use if
appropriate. D. Nier confirmed that the property owner did not respond or challenge to
the RC-1 zoning. D. Nier confirmed that one of the units in this property has not been
used for five or six years due to disrepair. D. Hiland stated that was correct.
D. Nier asked what effect approval of this special use permit request would have on
other similar requests. D. Hiland responded that a precedent may be set for other
properties in the area to request special use permits and receive the same kind of
consideration from the Commission.
Chair Atherton confirmed with D. Hiland that the approval from this Commission means
the request will go to the City Council for final approval.
M. Crull confirmed again that one unit in the home has not been lived in for some time
due to disrepair. He summarized the recommendations from staff. He asked the
Commission if anyone was ready to vote on the recommendations or if a continuance to
hear from other individuals who could not be present tonight.
D. Nier stated that she would support a continuance and but would not support approval
of the special use permit.
D. Castro made a motion to continue the public hearing to the next meeting of the
Commission, which is scheduled for June 29, 2016, at the petitioner’s behest. The
motion was seconded by D. Nier. No vote was taken.
A discussion followed of when the request would be presented to the City Council,
whether the hearing should be continued, or if the special use permit request should be
approved or denied tonight. Chair Atherton clarified that if a continuation was granted,
the record of tonight’s public hearing would be available to the individuals who
requested a continuance, as well as anyone else who wished to speak at the later date.
D. Hiland recommended not continuing the hearing to June 29th because the petitioner
cannot be present.
Ms. Youngquist asked the Commission if they were aware of the amount of work it
takes to submit a special use permit and meet the deadlines. Chair Atherton responded
that she was aware of it. Ms. Youngquist stated that it has taken her four months to get
to this point, and she has made a concerted effort to follow the rules, notifying people
and publishing notices. She voiced a concern that prolonging the process may open up
discriminatory issues. She encouraged the Commission to stand by the established
special use permit request process and deadlines. She objected to prolonging the
process. She stated she did not realize the hearing could be continued.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 7 of 10
D. Castro amended his motion to continue the public hearing to July 13, 2016 to allow
those who are not present, including one of the current owners, to be part of the
conversation with the intent not to exclude anyone. The motion was seconded by D.
Nier. A voice vote and then a roll call vote were taken: Yes – D. Castro, D. Nier, No – M.
Crull, A. Katz, Chair Atherton (2 Aye, 3 Nay). The motion to continue the hearing failed.
Chair Atherton requested a motion for the Commission’s recommendation to City
Council.
Discussion among the Commission members continued.
M. Crull explained why he voted no. He stated he did not want to make a precedent.
Individuals on both sides of the issue spoke tonight. Those who requested a
continuance who were not present also represent both sides of the issue. He suggested
that perhaps the property’s use might be grandfathered to allow for the two-dwelling
property. He voiced support for approving the special use permit.
M. Crull made a motion to recommend the approval of the special use permit. The
motion was seconded by A. Katz.
Discussion continued.
D. Castro stated he would not support approving the special use permit. He stated he
thought this was an opportunity to think about the City’s future and what would happen
in the long term if another owner did not live in one of the units. He supported a single-
family residence in this area and many other areas of DeKalb.
A. Katz cited that five two-family properties and two multi-family structures currently
exist in the area nearby the property in question, so it would not be unusual for the area.
D. Castro pointed out that the majority of the properties are single-family.
M. Crull mentioned that his own neighborhood in DeKalb is similar, with owner-occupied
single-family and rentals throughout.
D. Castro agreed that in the past, DeKalb allowed property owners to split their homes
into separate units, but he did not agree with continuing that practice into the future.
D. Nier agreed with D. Castro. She stated that the property owners had a part in the
RC-1 zoning process, and the current owners did not take advantage of the opportunity
to be a part of it. D. Nier pointed out that she has nothing against renters, as she is a
renter herself, as they can be good neighbors. She voiced agreement with D. Castro
that the Commission must look beyond the current situation to the future.
Chair Atherton asked if there were any further comments so she could declare the
public hearing ended.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 8 of 10
J. Wahlstrom approached the microphone to speak. He pointed to how a few months
after RC-1 zoning was established, property owners with objections continued to
emerge and their cataloged land uses were allowed to change after verification. He
compared the current request, although years later, to that. He said that the property
owners did not contest because they were not aware of the long-term ramifications of
not objecting to their property’s cataloged use. He did not believe that the current
property owners made a choice.
J. Youngquist commented that the future of DeKalb is not negatively affected when
properties in DeKalb are advertised as rental property opportunities, just like hers was.
B. Morsch speculated that the property owners may not have wanted to get involved
with governmental matters or conflict. This property was being handed down in the
family like many other properties in DeKalb. He quoted D. Hiland’s assertion that the
intention of the RC-1 zoning was to return the value of the residential neighborhood. He
suggested that the RC-1 zoning was designed discriminatory against renters. He
suggested that an owner of rental property for 40 years may not have known his right to
maintain the status of his income-producing property was at risk.
Louise Calderon spoke again and asked that the rights of single-family property owners
to keep their property values be considered as well. She stated there is a reason for
DeKalb sought to keep properties in a historic neighborhood single-family.
Chairman Atherton closed public hearing at 7:10p.m.
Chairman Atherton requested a roll call vote to recommend the approval of the special
use permit request, which was motion by M. Crull and seconded by A. Katz. Aye votes
were cast by M. Crull, A. Katz. Nay votes were cast by D. Nier, D. Castro, and Chair
Atherton. The votes of 2 aye and 3 nay will be presented to City Council on July 11th for
final consideration.
At the City Council meeting, there will be another opportunity to speak at that public
hearing. D. Hiland offered to reach out to the individuals who were not present and
provided contact information to invite them to the City Council meeting.
Chair Atherton excused herself from the meeting due to another commitment and
declared a recess at 7:13p.m.
The meeting resumed at 7:19p.m. D. Hiland requested a motion to appoint D. Castro as
Acting Chair for the remainder of the meeting. The motion was made by M. Crull and
seconded by D. Nier. All approved by voice vote. D. Castro continued as acting Chair.
2. Public Hearing on Variance requests for St. Mary’s Church to allow for the
encroachment of the front stairwell into the front yard setback at 329 Pine Street,
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 9 of 10
DeKalb Illinois.
D. Hiland provided an overview of the variance request. The official address of St.
Mary’s Church is on Fisk, but the main entryway and façade is at 329 Pine, The
proposed replacement of the front steps includes widening the landing at the top of the
stairs and adding another smaller landing in the middle of the stairs. The property’s RC-
1 zoning requires buildings to be set back at no less than 25 feet and allows for an
unenclosed paved terrace to project into the front yard by no more than 10 feet. This
variance requests to increase the allowable length of the new stairs to project an
additional 5 feet 2-3/4 inches with a proposed setback of 9 feet 9-3/4 inches. D. Hiland
presented similar structures with unenclosed paved terraces in the backup materials.
City staff recommends approval of this variance request.
D. Hiland reminded the Commission members that they are acting as the Zoning Board
of Appeals, which does not require City Council approval, and allowing them make the
final decision.
D. Castro asked for comments from the public.
Lisa Sharp of Sharp Architects approached to speak. Her firm has been working with St.
Mary Church for years to improve their property. The church was built in 1901. St.
Mary’s front stairs have raised safety concerns for some time, as parishioners have
experienced many minor accidents due to the stairs’ current design. Hundreds of people
use the stairs on the south side of the building every week, and many have complained
that the area top of the stairs is too short and the steps are too steep.
The proposed design of the new stairs includes increasing the top landing by over a
foot, increasing the tread depth by one inch, increasing the height of each riser, and
adding a six-foot wide intermediate landing and code compliant handrails.
The variance request proposes allowing the last three stairs and the hand rails to
extend into the 15-foot public set back. The Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, Baptist
Church, and Public Library have built stairs into the public setback and even up to the
property line. Ms. Sharp encouraged the Commission to approve the variance, which
will benefit the members of St. Mary’s and the DeKalb community.
D. Castro asked for comments from the public. Seeing and hearing none, he asked for
comments from the Commission members.
D. Nier voiced approval for the variance request, as it will improve safety and make the
entrance similar to other nearby structures.
D. Castro asked D. Hiland to educate the Commission and public upon the RC-1
setback requirements.
D. Hiland responded that bulk regulations differ for each of the City’s zoning districts,
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
Page 10 of 10
including regulations for front, side, and back yard setbacks, and height requirements.
He pointed to the architect diagrams to compare the setbacks in the current design and
the new design. In most cases, when a property is not solid concrete from step to curb,
the measurement of the setback is taken from the inside of the sidewalk along the right
of way to the edge of the structure. Usually pins are buried in the yard that mark the
property lines, often where the yard meets the sidewalk. In this case, the building is set
back 25 feet, but the length of the proposed project’s last three steps and railings
extend into the 15 feet remaining between the property line and the edge of the current
bottom stair.
D. Castro asked for any more comments from the public. Hearing and seeing none, he
closed the public hearing at 7:28p.m.
D. Castro asked for a motion to approve the variance request. D. Nier motioned to
approve the variance request. A. Katz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken.
Aye votes were cast by D. Nier, A. Katz, M. Crull, D. Castro. There were no nay votes.
The motion passed 4 to 0.
CONSIDERATIONS
None.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
None.
REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
No meeting will be held June 29th. The next meeting will be in July.
ADJOURNMENT
Seeing and hearing no more comments, D. Castro requested a motion to adjourn. A
motion to adjourn was made by M. Crull. The motion was seconded by A. Katz and
approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned 7:31p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie Nelson, Recorder
Minutes approved at September 14, 2016 Meeting.
Agenda
AGENDA
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 2016
6:00 PM
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions)
C. CITIZEN COMMENTS (OPEN FLOOR TO ANYONE W ISHING TO SPEAK ON RECORD)
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. MAY 25, 2016 MEETING
E. OLD BUSINESS
F. NEW BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing on a Special Use Request for a conversion of a Single Family
Residence to Two Family Residence located at 302 S. Third Street, DeKalb Illinois.
2. Public Hearing on a Variance request for St. Mary’s Church to allow for
the encroachment of the front stairwell into the front yard setback at 329 Pine
Street, DeKalb Illinois.
G. CONSIDERATIONS
H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J. ADJOURNMENT
PZC048-16
ITEM D1
DRAFT MINUTES
CITY OF DEKALB
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
May 25, 2016
The City of DeKalb Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on May 25, 2016
in the DEKALB POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2nd floor Training Room, 700 West Lincoln
Highway, DeKalb, Illinois.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner David Castro called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning & Zoning Commission members present: David Castro, Deborah Nier, Roger
Ruehling, and Jerry Wright. Members absent: Chair Christina Atherton, Matthew Crull, and
Adam Katz. Mr. Hiland requested David Castro to run the meeting, and he accepted. At
6:13, A. Katz arrived to join the meeting.
Also present: Derek Hiland, Principal Planner and Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant.
INITIAL COMMENTS
Mr. Hiland explained that the City Council Chambers were not available for this Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting. The Police Station Training Room at 700 West Lincoln
Highway was chosen as the venue. The meeting was recorded but not broadcast live.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. Castro requested a motion to approve the agenda for May 25, 2016. A motion to approve
was made by J. Wright. The motion was seconded by R. Ruehling and approved by voice
vote.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D. Castro requested a motion to approve the April 13, 2016 minutes. A motion to approve
was made by D. Nier. The motion was seconded by R. Ruehling and approved by voice vote
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Request for 858 W. Lincoln Highway on a
request by Bill Streur of Book World, Inc. on behalf of the Junction Shopping Center which
would allow for an additional 16 square feet of signage to be installed on the existing
easternmost legally nonconforming custom ground sign.
D. Castro opened the public hearing and requested that Mr. Hiland present introductory
comments. The Junction Shopping Center is a multi-tenant strip center with a few outlot
buildings with 17 store fronts on the south side of West Lincoln Highway. Zoning for the
property is Light Commercial. Between the two entrances to the shopping center are custom
ground signs designed to look like railroad crossings.
Book World representatives expressed concern about the limited visibility of the proposed
location of their DeKalb store, as it is considerably set back from the road. Book World
requested to add its own signage to the easternmost Junction Shopping Center sign. City
staff determined that Book World would need to submit a special use permit to request an
additional 2’x8’ sign, equaling 16 square feet. The current sign is approximately 153 square
feet. Consequently, adding the proposed Book World sign would increase the total area of
the easternmost sign to 169 square feet. The westernmost sign would not change. An image
of the proposed sign was included in the background material for the meeting.
Mr. Hiland noted that the applicant and the ownership group were represented in the
audience.
Two citizen response forms were received. Copies were distributed to the Commission
members. One response was in favor of the special use permit for the additional signage.
The other response was not in favor due to an incorrect perception that the sign would
increase in height and involve additional landscaping.
D. Castro invited the Book World representatives to speak about their proposed project.
Gregg Belonger, Vice President of Store Operations. Book World is a family-owned
company based in Appleton, Wisconsin, that owns a total of 46 stores, two of which are
slightly different. Book World has been looking at DeKalb for a while and received numerous
calls from people over the past two years asking Book World to open a store to DeKalb. Mr.
Belonger listed Illinois towns that have Book World stores, including Sterling, Peru, Danville,
Moline, and Freeport. Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Iowa also have Book World
stores. The first store was opened by 1976 in Rylander, Wisconsin, in a resort area.
Mr. Belonger stated that the proposed sign would not, in fact, increase the total height of the
sign. He stated that the biggest concern Book World had about opening a store in the far
corner of the Junction Shopping Center was the need for a sign up front on Route 38.
J. Wright asked for an overview of Book World’s business. Mr. Belonger responded that
Book World offers large selection of magazines, books, toys, games, and puzzles, as well
as space for tables and chairs for customers. The sale of books and magazine sales are the
main focus of the business.
J. Wright asked if the DeKalb store would was an established store moving to another
location or a new store. Mr. Belonger responded that it would be a new store. He reported
that in the past five or six years, a couple stores have closed in very small towns in Michigan
and Minnesota. However, Book World’s goal is to open more stores, not close stores.
Mr. Wright commented that many people have moved toward electronic books and Amazon
for reading materials. Mr. Belonger agreed that Book World is fighting that movement, and
he cited a recent study that reported that the markets for magazines and mass market
paperbacks have actually increased while ebook sales have decreased slightly. In the right
towns, people love book stores.
D. Castro asked if Book World would cater to townspeople more than the college students.
Mr. Belonger responded that one of their best stores in Marquette, Michigan, does very well
with both local residents and the college students.
J. Wright addressed the citizen response objecting to the height of the proposed sign. Mr.
Hiland confirmed that the proposal does not extend the height of the sign. D. Castro
displayed a photo copy of the proposed 2’x8’ sign, which would fit between the “Junction
Shopping” X and “Center” where there is a space. Mr. Belonger stated that the sign would
be green with white lettering and with backlit LEDs that do not blink.
D. Castro asked if this additional sign would cause the current easternmost signage to be
nonconforming or would it be adding to an already nonconforming sign. D. Hiland confirmed
that the current sign is already nonconforming, so this proposal would essentially make the
sign more nonconforming. D. Castro stated he has looked at the sign recently, and the
additional Book World sign would not overtake the current signage. D. Hiland confirmed that
to be true.
J. Wright stated that the he always associated the current sign with the Junction Restaurant,
even though it does not say “Restaurant” on the sign. He wondered if there may be confusion
since Book World would appear between the Junction Shopping Center signage and the
Junction Restaurant changeable message board. He asked if there needs to be clarification,
so it does not appear that Book World was advertising food. D. Hiland responded that the
Junction Restaurant is just one of several tenants in the Junction Shopping Center. Book
World plans to occupy space number 7 of 17 in the Center. D. Hiland stated he did not know
of a better way to make the proposed sign complementary to the current approach.
D. Nier asked if the restaurant expressed any concerns about to the proposed signage. D.
Hiland confirmed there were no objections. A. Katz asked what would happen if another
tenant requested an individual sign at the roadside. D. Hiland responded the tenant would
have to come before the Commission for consideration. D. Hiland explained that a multi-
tenant sign might be a future consideration if it is deemed necessary.
D. Nier asked if any other tenant in the Junction Shopping Center has expressed a desire to
place a sign near the street. D. Hiland responded that no other tenant has done so.
J. Wright inquired whether there are two Junction Shopping Center signs. D. Hiland
confirmed there are two, and the additional signage in this proposal is the easternmost sign.
R. Ruehling asked if the Book World sign would be visible from both the east and the west.
D. Hiland confirmed this to be the case.
D. Castro stated that he did not see anything about landscaping changes in the proposal, to
which a citizen response expressed objection. D. Hiland pointed to the backup material,
which shows existing landscaping at the base of the sign. However, landscaping changes
are not part of the current proposal. He suggested that there may have been some confusion
on the part of the citizen who objected.
D. Castro asked what elements of the sign are considered nonconforming. D. Hiland
responded that the current size, custom shape, and possibly the height are non-conforming
elements. City Code allows multi-tenant signs to be taller than signs for a single business.
The sign in question is already considered legal non-conforming. D. Hiland said he did not
evaluate whether the current landscaping is considered non-conforming or not; landscaping
is required to surround the base of a sign. The Commission’s role is to decide whether the
special use permit under consideration should be recommended to the City Council as
proposed or with conditions or suggested changes.
D. Castro stated that he drove by the current sign and noted that it is larger than most, but
adding the Book World sign in the middle did not cause him any concern. D. Nier and A.
Katz stated they did not have any objection to the added signage. A. Katz reiterated that if
any other businesses in the shopping center were to ask for similar signage they would have
to go through the same special use permit procedure.
D. Hiland passed around his tablet computer to the commissioners, so they could view a
larger color image of the current signage as it is on Google Maps street view 2013.
D. Castro closed the public comments period at 6:27 p.m. and invited discussion among the
Commissioners. A. Katz and D. Nier stated they are both excited to have a book store in
DeKalb again.
D. Nier motioned to approve the proposed special use permit as presented. The motion was
seconded by A. Katz and all approved by voice vote.
Mr. Belonger thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation to the
City Council. D. Hiland explained that the recommendation would be presented to the City
Council for final approval. D. Castro welcomed Book World to DeKalb.
At 6:29 Mr. Belonger and Mr. Richard Finn (property owner representative) left the meeting.
CONSIDERATIONS
None.
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
None.
REPORTS/ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
1. Consideration of requests by Greenwood Acres PUD, LLC for approval of the Final
Plan / Final Plat and development plans for the subject property on a proposed multitenant
development at 2023 Sycamore Road (SW corner of Greenwood Acres Drive and Sycamore
Road).
D. Hiland spoke about the repeated appearance of this item on the Planning and Zoning
Commission Agenda. He stated that the Annexation Agreement has not yet been approved
by the City Council. He provided an overview of the progress of this project, originally
proposed by Ron Breese, but now Greenwood Acres PUD, LLC is the name of the applicant.
2. Public Hearing on a Special Use Request for a conversion of a Single Family
Residence to Two Family Residence located at 302 S. Third Street, DeKalb Illinois.
Mr. Hiland spoke about this special use request, which is similar to the recent Market Street
proposal. The property was likely converted to a two-family by right, and then it became
vacant. There is no grandfathering provision to allow the property to return to a two-family
dwelling instead of reverting to a single-family as is the usual procedure.
3. Public Hearing on Variance requests for St. Mary’s Church to allow for the
encroachment of the front stairwell into the front yard setback at 329 Pine Street, DeKalb
Illinois.
Mr. Hiland described the church’s plan for reconstruction of the front stairway on Pine Street.
The variance request is allow the setback to decrease by a few feet to allow a stepped
stairwell with a landing.
D. Castro confirmed that the next meeting will be June 15, 2016.
ADJOURNMENT
Seeing and hearing no more comments, D. Castro requested a motion to adjourn. A motion
to adjourn was made by A. Katz. The motion was seconded by J. Wright and approved by
voice vote. The meeting adjourned 6:34p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie Nelson, Recorder
ITEM F1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PZC -2016
June 9, 2016
TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Application by Jayne Youngquist for a Special Use Permit for a Two Family Unit at 302 S.
Third Street, DeKalb, Illinois 60115.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Purpose To permit a “Two Family Unit” (use #1 of UDO
Article 5.14.04 Special Land Uses and
Developments of a RC-1 Residential Conservation
District)
B. Location 302 S. Third Street
C. Access Franklin Street
D. Size 66 x 156; 10,296 square feet
E. Existing Zoning RC-1 Residential Conservation District
F. Existing Land Use Single family home, detached garage
G. Proposed Land Use Two Family Units:
H. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: CBD Central Business; banquet facility
South: RC-1 Residential Conservation; single family
residential
East: RC-1 Residential Conservation; single family
residential
West: RC-1 Residential Conservation; single family
residential
I. Comprehensive Plan Designation Medium Density Residential
PZC049-16 302 S Third St SUP SR.docx
II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST
Jayne Youngquist, contract purchaser of 302 S. Third Street, is requesting approval of a special use
permit to establish a “Two Family Unit” on the subject property. “Two Family Unit” is listed as a
Special Use in UDO Section 5.14.04.
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
The subject property is a 10,296 square foot residential lot of record, containing an existing residence
and detached two car garage. The residence is physically configured as a two family unit, with two
exterior entrance doors, two electric services, and two gas meters. However, there is only one water
service, according to City records. Each unit has one bedroom. One of the units is in need of repairs
and the owner told staff it has not been used for approximately 5 to 6 years. No City permit records
are available regarding when the structure was configured as a two family.
When the RC-1 District was established, staff surveyed residential structures in the proposed RC-1
areas and determined whether they were single family, two family, or multi family. The subject
property was classified as single family. All property owners were notified regarding these
determinations and were given an opportunity to request a correction. Approximately 70 property
owners responded to the notices, and approximately 25 designations were changed based on the
property owners’ information, prior to establishment of the RC-1 District. The subject property did
not object or request a change to its single family classification. Therefore, even though the physical
configuration of the structure is a two family dwelling, it is not considered an “Original Residential
Use” under Section 5.14.03 and therefore a two family use is not permitted.
Staff suggested the applicant obtain documentation of the property being used as a two family
dwelling. If it can be shown that the property was legally established prior to being zoned RC-1 and
has been used continuously as a two family dwelling, it could qualify as a nonconforming use and
be allowed to continue, without a Special Use. One of the four current owners of the property
submitted a letter indicating that the property was purchased as a two flat in 1969, at which time
each unit had a kitchen, bathroom, living room, and one bedroom. The letter also indicates that later,
one of the bedrooms in one of the units was altered into two bedrooms. However, the listing sheet
for the property indicates the units each have one bedroom at this time, so apparently the alteration
was reversed. So it’s likely that the configuration as a two family dwelling was established legally.
However, no evidence has been submitted that it has been continuously occupied as a two family
unit. As previously noted, the owners stated to staff that one of the units has not been used for 5 to
6 years due to being in a state of disrepair, so it appears that the property cannot qualify as a
nonconforming use.
Because the property is not classified as a two family “Original Residential Use” under Section
5.14.03, and does not qualify as a nonconforming two family dwelling, the only way for the contract
purchaser to use the property as a two family unit is to be granted a Special Use.
The land uses immediately adjoining the subject property to the east, west, and south are all single
family residential. The land use immediately north of the property, across Franklin Street, is
PZC-9-2016 | PZC049-16 Page 2 of 5
commercial (Faranda’s Banquets). In the wider area south of Franklin, within approximately 300
feet of the subject property, there are 15 single family, 5 two family, and 2 multi-family structures
as well as one church and one parking lot. All of the two family and multi-family structures are
classified as “Original Residential Uses” in RC-1.
IV. ANALYSIS
The RC-1 Residential Conservation District was created for the following purposes:
• To promote and provide for economic revitalization
• To protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and
recognized identity, charm and flavor
• To protect and enhance the livability of the City
• To reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive
development, and to promote new compatible development
• To enhance property values
• To encourage and strengthen civic pride
• To encourage the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and redevelopment of the City.
Staff’s primary concern is that granting this Special Use could set a precedent that would encourage
additional two family uses in the RC-1 districts, as detailed in Standard #5 below. The RC-1 District
was established so that existing two family and multi-family uses could be maintained and would
not have the cloud of non-conformity hanging over them when it came time to obtain a mortgage. It
was not created to provide a vehicle for new two family uses throughout the area.
V. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USE
1. The proposed use complies with the applicable district regulations.
No physical changes to the exterior of the building are proposed at this time, so the use is the only
regulation in question.
2. The proposed use will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate area nor
to the public welfare at large.
The proposed use is inconsistent with the predominant land use in the area, which is single family.
However, it is difficult to say whether property values or the public welfare will be significantly
affected. If the structure is reconfigured as a single family dwelling, it would likely have two
bedrooms. The number of occupants expected in a two bedroom single family home could be about
the same as the number of occupants expected in two one-bedroom units. The amount of traffic and
parking needs could be about the same as well.
3. The use and accompanying physical attributes are such that the use will not dominate
the immediate neighborhood.
The proposed use would utilize the existing structures on the property, and because the number of
PZC-9-2016 | PZC049-16 Page 3 of 5
occupants in two one-bedroom units may be similar to the number of occupants in a two or three
bedroom single family unit, granting the Special Use is not likely to dominate the immediate
neighborhood.
4. Adequate utility services exist or will be provided.
There are existing utilities serving the dwelling and no deficiencies have been identified. As
previously noted, there are two electric services and two natural gas services to the building but one
water/sewer service.
5. The use is consistent with good planning practice, and will conform to the regulations
of the district in which it is located.
While the proposed use may not have a large impact on the immediate area, it is inconsistent with
the intent and purposes of the RC-1 District. The nature of the RC-1 District is that unless a property
is classified as an “Original Residential Use”, its internal configuration has no impact on the uses
for which it is permitted. In other words, for purposes of RC-1 zoning, there is no difference between
the subject property and a property that was never a two family unit. Therefore, granting the Special
Use could set a precedent for allowing new two-family conversions in the RC-1 District.
6. The use is essential or desirable to preserve and promote the public health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of DeKalb.
It is not essential to allow the proposed use in order to preserve and promote the public health, safety
and welfare; there is a good supply of dwelling units in a variety of sizes and prices.
VI. CITIZEN INPUT
The City has received one written objection to the proposed Special Use from an owner of a single
family home immediately west of the subject property; that owner has requested that the public
hearing be postponed because she will be out of town on the 15th.
The City has received one letter in support from one of the current owners of the subject property,
who has also requested that the hearing be postponed because she will be out of town. The applicant
submitted a petition supporting the application signed by four individuals; it is not clear whether
they are residents or owners, but the addresses they listed are located on the same block as the subject
property.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to a date when the two people requesting
postponement can attend.
Staff recommends denial of the special use permit application for the reasons stated in this report.
PZC-9-2016 | PZC049-16 Page 4 of 5
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Hupp
Consulting Planner
PZC-9-2016 | PZC049-16 Page 5 of 5
May 26, 2016
Dear Property Owner(s):
The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) will consider a Special Use Permit Request
petition by Jane Youngquist on behalf of Judith Sulaver on property zoned “RC-1” Residential
Conservation District in order to amend the landuse of the property located at 302 S. Third Street
DeKalb, Illinois. (see enclosed map). The petitioner seeks to convert a single family residential
dwelling to a two family dwelling by changing the legally recognized land use of the property
from single family to two family residential with a Special Use Permit. In order to do the petitioner
so needs the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The DeKalb PZC will hold the public hearing and review this request at their regular meeting on
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be at the DeKalb Municipal Building,
200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. As a property owner within two-hundred and fifty feet
of 302 S. Third Street, you are encouraged to attend the meeting to learn about and/or comment
on these requests. You may submit written comments regarding the proposal on the enclosed
comment sheet by fax (815-748-2359), by mail (Derek Hiland, 200 S. Fourth Street, DeKalb,
Illinois 60115), or by email (dhiland@cityofdekalb.com). All comments will be shared with the
PZC and will be included in the public record. Comments should be submitted by Wednesday,
June 8, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
If you have any questions about these requests, please feel free to contact me in the Community
Development Department at (815) 748-2364.
Sincerely,
Derek Hiland
Derek Hiland
Planner
Enclosures
CC: Mayor, City Council, City Manager
DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission
PZC046-16
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the DeKalb Zoning Planning
and Zoning Commission at a meeting on or after Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00PM in the
DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on a petition by Jane
Youngquist for a Special Use Permit request to legally convert a single family residence on
property zoned “RC-1” Residential Conservation District into a two family residential structure
located at 302 S. Third Street DeKalb, Illinois.
The property is legally described as:
LOT 1 IN BLOCK 17 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN (NOW CITY) OF DEKALB, DEKALB
COUNTY, ILLINOIS., SITUATED IN DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. (P.I.N. 08-23-308-001)
All interested persons are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above.
Interested persons are also encouraged to submit written comments on this proposal to the City of
DeKalb, Community Development Department, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, 60115
by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2016.
Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748-2364.
Christina Atherton, Chairman
DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission
City of DeKalb
Citizen Response Form
302 S. Third Street Special Use Request
Owners Name: _____________________________________________________________
Property Address: ___________________________________________________________
Basic Input:
□ I support the proposal.
□ I support redevelopment generally, but would like to see specifics before I decide.
□ I do not support the proposal.
Written Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Special Use Permit Request
ITEM F2
City of DeKalb
Planning and Zoning Commission (Board of Appeals)
Staff Report
June 8, 2016
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members
SUBJECT: Zoning Board of Appeals Case Number 3-2016
GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. Purpose: Granting a variance for St. Mary Church to permit a
front yard setback of 9 ft. 9 ¼ inches in lieu of the
15 ft. setback applicable to paved
terraces/unenclosed porches in the RC-1 district.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing stairs
that provide the main ingress and egress to the
sanctuary adjoining Pine Street.
B. Location St. Mary Church, 302 Fisk Avenue
C. Size 330 ft. x 330 ft. (the Church occupies the entire
block)
D. Existing Zoning “RC-1” Residential Conservation District
E. Existing/Proposed Land Use Church
F. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: “RC-1”; residential dwellings
South: “RC-1”; churches, church parking lot
East: “RC-1”; residential dwellings
West: “RC-1”; residential dwellings, parking lot
G. Comprehensive Plan Designation Public/Institutional
PZC050-16 ZBA-3-2016 St Mary's Chair Variance Request 329 Pine St SR.docx
The Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the Zoning Board of Appeals, will hear a request
for a variance from the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) proposed by
St. Mary Church, owner of 302 Fisk Avenue / 329 Pine Street. The church proposes to remove
and replace the exterior stairs adjoining Pine Street that provide the main access to the sanctuary.
The proposed replacement involves extending the landing at the top of the stairs, providing an
intermediate landing, and widening the stair tread depth from 11 inches to 12 inches. The existing
stairs extend approximately 15 ft. from the face of the building; the proposed stairs would extend
approximately 22 ½ ft. from the face of the building.
In order to render the proposed stairs and railings conforming to the RC-1 district requirements, a
variance is necessary. UDO 5.14.05.02 (a) requires a front yard setback of 25 feet in the RC-1
District, and UDO 7.03.03 allows an unenclosed porch or paved terrace to project into the required
front yard building setback not more than 10 feet. Staff has determined that the stairs fall within
the “unenclosed porch or paved terrace” provision. Taken together, these provisions require a
setback of 15 feet for the proposed stairs and railings. The proposed stairs and railing would
project 5 ft. 2 ¾ inches into the required 15 ft. setback, for a proposed setback of 9 ft. 9 ¼ inches.
Discussion
The main Church building was constructed in 1901, and the existing stairs were constructed in
1958. The stairs have been repaired over the years but have now deteriorated to the point where
they need to be replaced. The Church proposes a replacement that will provide safer, easier ingress
and egress and that is in character with the architecture of the Church. Church officials indicate
there have been instances of parishioners having difficulty on the stairs due to their steepness as
well as some slip and fall incidents.
The proposed encroachment into the required 15 ft. setback consists of three steps, each 6-3/8
inches high and 12 inches deep, plus four railings, which are required by code. Those three steps
will extend 3 feet into the required 15 ft. setback; the handrails are the only element that extends
to the 5 ft. 2 ¾ inch point.
The application notes that there are several instances of institutional buildings near this site of
existing stairs that do not maintain a 15 ft. setback. In fact, most of the examples appear to have
no setback from the property line. All of the examples serve institutional uses, including three
churches and the public library. Two of the churches are zoned RC-1, and between them there are
four instances of stairs or steps within the 15 ft. setback. While the presence of nonconformities
on other properties is not a justification for a variance, these facts do show the proposal would not
be out of character with other similar uses in the neighborhood.
PZC-8-2016 | ZBA-3-2016 PAGE 2
Analysis
The request has been reviewed using the criteria regarding variances stated in Article 18, Section
18.03.03 of the UDO, titled “Findings of Fact,” as follows:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only
under the conditions allowed by the regulations of that district.
The concept of “reasonable return” for a church property relates to the return the church might
get if it were to sell the property at some future time, as compared to other properties of similar
size and character. The key question is whether requiring conformance with the zoning
restriction still allows for a reasonable return upon its sale, or if such conformance unduly
depresses the value of the property. In this instance, requiring the 15 ft. setback to be
maintained results in a situation where the existing stair configuration cannot be significantly
changed. Prospective future purchasers may see the steeper stairs as a risk, which could
depress the property’s value.
2. The extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property, requiring the request for
the variance, were not caused by the applicant.
The location of the Church building and its floor elevation were established prior to the City
establishing its zoning regulations. The building is set back from the property line
approximately 35 ½ feet, well in excess of the required 25 feet, but the floor elevation is seven
feet above the sidewalk, so stairs providing safe, convenient access to the building will need
to extend out from the building. The need for the variance is the result of the City establishing
setbacks well after the establishment of the conditions of the property.
.
3. The proposed variance will alleviate a peculiar, exceptional, or undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience or pecuniary hardship.
Being required to reconstruct the existing stairs in the present configuration would prevent the
Church from making an improvement that would enhance the safety of its facilities, both for
everyday access as well as for emergency egress. The cost of the proposed stairs is comparable
to, and perhaps somewhat greater than, the cost of reconstructing the existing stairs as
configured, so the variance is not based on a desire to save money.
4. The denial of the proposed variance will deprive the applicant of the use of his/her
property in a manner equivalent to the use permitted to be made by the owners of
property in the immediate area.
There are two other churches in the immediate area, zoned RC-1, with a total of four sets of
stairs that extend into the required 15 ft. setback. Three of these instances appear to have no
setback (the fourth appears to be in the right of way.) Denying the variance would deprive the
applicant of the ability to construct stairs that are similar in character to the existing stairs
serving other churches in the area. It should also be noted that the applicant’s proposal will
PZC-8-2016 | ZBA-3-2016 PAGE 3
maintain a setback of 9 ft. 9 ¼ inches for the railings, and 12 feet for the stairs, as compared to
the apparent zero setback of the other instances.
5. The proposed variance will result in a structure that is appropriate to and compatible
with the character and scale of structures in the area in which the variance is being
requested.
The proposed configuration of the stairs is a common pattern for institutional uses in the area,
including three churches and the public library. The proposed stairs will enhance the
appearance and safety of the Church building and will be in character and scale in relation to
other structures in the area.
Citizen Input
Four letters supporting the proposed variance and one letter of opposition have been received from
individuals. One neighbor, two Church Parisioners, and the chair of the Church’s Building and
Grounds Committee wrote letters supporting the proposal. A neighboring property owner opposes
the encroachment of the steps indicating their preference to see the steps replaced in the current
location.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the facts, discussion and analysis presented
in the application and this report.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert Hupp
Consulting Planner
Please contact the Community Development Department at (815) 748-2060 should you have any
questions or comments about this issue.
PZC-8-2016 | ZBA-3-2016 PAGE 4
Jeffrey Keppler
Subject: FW: 1530 St Mary Stair Zoning Variance
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Allan Metzger [mailto:a.j.metzger26@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 11:32 AM
To: gregu@stmarydekalb.org
Subject: St. Mary's Church Stairs
Dear Greg,
I just wanted to make a comment on the need for improved front stairs. The main reason I see for improving the step
height [shorter] and including a center mezzanine is because when Mass, or when other services where large numbers
of people are leaving the church all at the same time there is congestion. Some of the people are older and a shorter
step would be easier for them, the same for parents with young children, and just having more room on the stairs would
improve leaving the church for everyone. Having a mezzanine [extended flat area] midway up the stairs would also give
people a chance to stop for a moment. I also think the mezzanine would be helpful when a casket is being carried into
the church. This is a regular event for a church such as ours.
The stairs really do need to be replaced and should be constructed so that all who wish to enter can do so easily. This
brings to mind our Director of Music, Paula Vasko, who due to a permanent disability has trouble navigating the steps. I
have seen how slowly she climbs the front church stairs, which is the entrance the closest to the choir loft. I’m sure
improved stairs would make it easier for her and many other people.
I do hope that the stairway project will be approved as designed.
Sincerely,
Joan Metzger
1
Date: 05/13/2016
To: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
c/o Mr. Derek Hiland, Principal Planner
derek.hiland@cityofdekalb.com
City of DeKalb
200 S. Fourth Street
DeKalb, IL, 60115
815.748.2364
Re: St. Mary Church Stair
329 Pine Street, DeKalb, IL
Zoning Variance Request – Additional Information
Mr. Hiland and Commissioners:
The following are responses to requested items listed on the “Additional Information” sheet within the
City of DeKalb’s Request for Variance Application. Each City requested item is stated below, then
followed with a response by Sharp Architects, on behalf of the applicant, St. Mary Church.
1. Explain the nature of the variance requested and attach a scale drawing of the survey of the
property showing lot lines, location of existing buildings, structures and other improvements, and
showing the proposed addition or change requiring the variance.
The existing monumental stair at the main entry to the sanctuary at St Mary’s Church, was an
alteration made in 1958 to original 1901 structure. In its 58-year existence, the stair has seen
significant traffic, deteriorated considerably and is ultimately in need of attention. The
congregation and parishioners alike, have struggled with the current configuration of the stair for
years. It has long been felt that the existing risers are too tall, the treads are too shallow, and there
is not adequate landing space at the top of the stair. This makes for a difficult ascent, decent and
overall approach to the building. This is especially true for those who are elderly or may have a
disability. Also, the existing railings end at the second tread and are not code compliant by
today’s standards.
The petitioner would like to add additional length at the top landing, reduce the typical riser height,
increase typical tread depth, add in an intermediate landing, and bring the handrails/guardrails
up to code. Constructing a new stair using these strategies will create a user entry sequence that
is much safer and inviting. The proposed design achieves the following improvements:
1. The design adds an additional 13” of depth to the top landing
2. Increases each tread depth by an inch from 11” to 12”
3. Provides a 6’-0” deep intermediate landing mid-ascent
4. Adds an additional riser which reduces the typical riser height
5. Provides proper code compliant handrail extensions
■ 421 Grove Street ■ t: 815-517-1050 ■ f: 815-401-0001 ■ DeKalb, IL 60115 ■ www.sharparchitectsinc.com ■
To achieve all of these improvements we are proposing a design that will encroach 5’-2 3/4” into
the 15’ setback required for “paved terraces” and unenclosed porches as described in Article 7,
Section 7.03, paragraph 3.
2. Submit documentation describing in detail how the strict application of the terms of the ordinance
relating to the request for the variance imposes practical difficulties or particular hardship while
not serving merely as a convenience to the applicant as required in #3 & #4.
The drawings included with our application describe the constraints of the area of the site in which
the main entry to the sanctuary and the stair in question is located. The existing location of the
building, in conjunction with the required setbacks and allowed encroachments, make it
technically infeasible to improve upon the existing stair in a safe manner without a variance.
3. Demonstrate that the request for a variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the ordinance by clarifying that the request will not;
a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
The majority of the visual changes occur below 36” above grade, it is from that point that the
intermediate landing begins. We do not feel that this change has any effect on altering light
and air to adjacent property or even other areas within the petitioner’s property. The new
guardrail at the stair will be metal and as open as building code allows. We do not feel this will
change the light and air movement across the site.
b. Unreasonably increase congestion upon public streets.
The reconfiguration of the stair will not have any impact on the number of occupants using the
building.
c. Increase the danger of fire or endanger public safety.
The proposed stair is intended to help people evacuate the building more safely in the event
of a fire, and improve the safety factor of those entering and exiting.
d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area.
We do not feel that our proposed design will have any negative impact on surrounding property
values.
e. In any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the
inhabitants of the City of DeKalb.
We feel that our proposed solution is strictly in the best interests of increasing the safety, comfort,
and welfare of those entering the structure, and in no way does our solution negatively impact
the general public or surrounding community.
4. Demonstrate that denial of the request for variance will;
a. Prevent the property in question from yielding a reasonable return if only permitted to be used
under the conditions allowed by the ordinance.
Page 2 of 8
Denial of the variance will essentially force the church to reconstruct a stair very similar in nature
to the existing stair. Since the church operates as a non-profit organization, it is not likely to
prevent them from yielding a reasonable “operational” return. It does however, create a long
term condition where the building itself becomes less desirable to a prospective buyer. Should
the church for any reason decide that the property no longer suit them and look to sell to
another entity, prospective buyers could see the steeper stair configuration as a risk, in essence
reducing the reasonable property value. In addition to accounting for the value to the property
or the return, one must also consider the potential risk factor associated with the request.
Reconstructing the steeper stair puts the church at a higher liability of an incident occurring.
We feel that since there have already been incidents reported, the proposed design would
reduce the likelihood of an incident occurring.
b. Prove the exceptional conditions were not caused by the applicant.
The original sanctuary building was constructed in 1901, pre-dating the existing zoning
ordinance. Historically church structures were raised up from grade a half level to give them
more prominence in the neighborhood, as well as allow reasonable light into the basement
level. St Mary’s church was designed in this typical fashion, necessitating the need for the
exterior stair at the main entry. The building itself was set back far enough to create adequate
space on the front and side yards, and even falls within the required front and side yard
setbacks defined in today’s ordinance.
In 1958 (after 57 years), an exterior renovation made every reasonable attempt to rebuild the
exterior stair to better accommodate the structure. In fact, it was at this time that the width of
the stair was nearly tripled from 10’ to 28’, two additional egress doors were added to the front
elevation of the building, and the top landing depth was increased by 3’. Presumably, this was
done in an effort to better accommodate the volume of people ingressing and egressing within
a short period of time. By today’s building codes, a single set of double doors and the 10’ wide
stair would not be able to evacuate the building quickly enough should an emergency occur.
The modifications made in 1958 were made to increase life safety and were a great
improvement.
After another 58 years, the existing stair is once again in need of replacement and the church
is still having issues safely getting occupants in and out of the building. Though the existing
conditions meet the current building and zoning codes, reconstructing the same stair to the
minimum letter of the code would simply be recreating a problematic condition. The existing
stair in its current condition has historically caused safety concerns and lead to slip and fall
incidents. The church has recognized a problem and they see the opportunity to solve it by
altering its design to the extent feasible and allowable by the City of DeKalb.
c. Prove the proposed variance will deprive the applicant the use of the property in a manner
equivalent to the use permitted to be made by owners of property in the area.
It appears as though there are other churches in the vicinity and within the same zoning
designation, that already have site stairways that are within the existing front yard setback. We
do not believe that the proposed stairs are objectionable to any of the neighboring facilities.
See photographs below for examples of similar conditions in the adjacent neighborhood:
Page 3 of 8
View of First United Methodist Church (Oak Street looking north - 1 block south of church)
View of First Lutheran Church (Pine Street looking south - 1 block southwest of church)
Page 4 of 8
View of First Lutheran Church (Third Street looking east - 1 block southwest of church)
View of First Lutheran Church (Third Street looking east - 1 block southwest of church)
Page 5 of 8
View of DeKalb Public Library (Oak Street looking north - 2 blocks southwest of church)
View of DeKalb Public Library (Oak Street looking north - 2 blocks southwest of church)
Page 6 of 8
View of DeKalb Public Library (Oak Street looking north - 2 blocks southwest of church)
View of First Church of Christ, Scientist (Third Street looking east - 3 blocks southwest of church)
Page 7 of 8
d. Result in a structure that is appropriate to and compatible with the character and scale of
structures in the area.
We are not proposing to alter the integrity or character of the existing 115 year-old structure. In
fact, the existing proportion of the stair seems steep and daunting in comparison to the overall
scale of the front elevation of the church. Our proposed design would soften that proportion
and create a more aesthetically pleasing and safe approach.
Enclosed, please find drawings supporting our application. Sheets A01, A02, A03 all describe the
existing conditions and layout of the current stairs. Drawings A04, A05, A06 and the rendering on A00
describe the proposed stair featuring code-compliant railings, an intermediate landing and enlarged
upper landing.
We appreciate your time and consideration on this project. We believe this project will further
enhance the neighborhood and provide safer entry and exit from this historic church for many
decades to come. We urge the Commission to support our petition.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Keppler
Sharp Architects Inc.
Cc: Fr. Dean Russell, St. Mary Church
Deacon Greg Urban, St. Mary Church
Encl: Drawings dated 5/13/2016 (7 pages)
A00 – Exterior Perspectives
A01 – Existing Partial First Floor Plan
A02 – Existing Partial South Building Elevation
A03 – Existing Stair Section
A04 – Proposed Partial First Floor Plan
A05 – Proposed Partial South Building Elevation
A06 – Proposed Stair Section
Partial Land Survey dated 8/31/2012
Letter of petition from St. Mary Church
Letter of petition from St. Mary Church Building and Grounds Committee
Letter of petition from James and Constance Jamison
Letter of petition from Joan Metzger
Page 8 of 8
sharp
architects
inc.
EXISTING EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
PROPOSED EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A00
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
sharp
architects
inc.
15' SETBACK
5' - 4 7/8"
DN
9' - 8 7/8"
15' SETBACK
LE
G
N
IA
1 T TR
H
A03 G
19' - 3 1/4" SI
33' - 10 1/2"
CURB LINE TO FACE OF STAIR
PROPERTY LINE
1
A02
EXISTING PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A01
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
sharp
architects
inc.
1
A03
FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"
EXG. B.O. STAIRS
EL. -6' - 2 3/8"
EXISTING PARTIAL SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION
1 3/16" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A02
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
sharp
architects
inc.
5' - 5 1/2" 9' - 7 1/2"
EXISTING LANDING EXISTING STAIR RUN
EXISTING RAILING BEYOND 15' SETBACK
TO BE REPLACED
EXISTING STAIRS TO BE
REMOVED
FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0"
B.O. EXG. STAIRS
EL. -6' - 2 3/8"
EXISTING SIDWALK
TO BE REMOVED
STAIR SECTION - EXISTING CONDITIONS
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A03
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
sharp
architects
inc.
+/- 27' - 7 1/4"
6' - 6 1/4"
5' - 0"
6' - 0"
15' SETBACK
5' - 0" LE
G
N
PROPOSED IA
TR
5' - 2 3/4"
ENCROACHMENT T
H
G
SI
1
A06
32' - 4 1/2"
9' - 9 1/4"
OVERALL STAIR
PROPERTY LINE
26' - 6 3/4" 15' - 0"
CURB TO PROPERTY LINE
CURB LINE TO FACE OF STAIR
1
A05
PROPOSED PARTIAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A04
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
sharp
architects
inc.
1
A06
PREFINISHED RAILING
W/ BRONZE HANDRAIL
T.O. LANDING FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0" 0' - 0"
CONCRETE STAIRS
MID LANDING
EL. -3' - 3"
B.O. STAIRS
EL. -6' - 6 1/8"
FOUNDATION
BELOW
PROPOSED PARTIAL SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION
1 3/16" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A05
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
6' - 6 1/4"
3' - 10 5/8" 5' - 0" 6' - 0 3/4" 5' - 0" sharp
architects
5 TREADS @ 12" LANDING 5 TREADS @ 12" inc.
1 1/2" X 1 1/2" TUBE
W/ DECORATIVE
BASE
1/4" DIA SOLID
ROUND RINGS
1/2" DIA SOLID 1" X 1 1/2" TUBE 15' SETBACK
ROUND RINGS
1/2" X 1/2" SOLID
BARS
1 1/2" O.D.
1' - 0" BRONZE HANDRAIL
1/8" / 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR
0' - 0" 5' - 2 3/4"
ENCROACHMENT INTO SETBACK
1" DIFFERENCE BTW.
24" MIN. CODE
TOP & BOTTOM
3' - 6" REQ. HANDRAIL 3' - 2 1/8"
2' - 10"
EDGE OF LANDING
T.O. HANDRAIL T.O. GUARDRAIL (6) RISERS @ 7" MAX.
1/8" / 1'-0"
EL. -3' - 3"
6 3/8" 3' - 2 1/8"
6 RISERS @ 7" MAX
TYP. RISER
STAIR SECTION - PROPOSED
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
PROJECT SHEET
05-13-2016
ST. MARY STAIR RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW 1530 A06
DEKALB, ILLINOIS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHARP ARCHITECTS INC. 421 GROVE STREET DEKALB, IL 60115 815-517-1050 WWW.SHARPARCHITECTSINC.COM
May 26, 2016
Dear Property Owner(s):
The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a petition by St. Mary’s Church for
a variance from the building setback requirement on property zoned “RC-1” Residential
Conservation District and located at 329 Pine Street DeKalb, Illinois. (see enclosed map). St.
Mary’s Church requests a variance from Article 7.03, Paragraph 3. This provision establishes a
minimum 15-foot setback for paved terraces and unenclosed porches. The petitioner requests the
variance to reconstruct the front stairway of the church into the front yard setback in order to
provide a terraced stairway (paved terrace). The variance requested would equal five feet and two
three quarter inches (5’-2 ¾”) and requires approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will hold the public hearing and review this request
at their regular meeting on Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be at the
DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. As a property owner
within two-hundred and fifty feet of 329 Pine Street, you are encouraged to attend the meeting to
learn about and/or comment on this variance (Var) request. You may submit written comments
regarding the proposal on the enclosed comment sheet by fax (815-748-2359), by mail (Derek
Hiland, 200 S. Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois 60115), or by email (dhiland@cityofdekalb.com).
All comments will be shared with the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be included in
the public record. Comments should be submitted by Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
If you have any questions about these requests, please feel free to contact the Community
Development Department at (815) 748-2364.
Sincerely,
Derek Hiland
Derek Hiland
Planner
Enclosures
CC: Mayor, City Council, City Manager
DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission
Petitioner’s Representative
PZC044-16
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the DeKalb Zoning Planning
and Zoning Commission at a meeting to be held on or after Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00PM
in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on a petition by St.
Mary’s Church for a variance from the front building setback requirement to remove and reinstall
larger front steps on the church. The property is zoned “RC-1” Residential Conservation and
located at 302 Fisk Avenue (329 Pine Street - Church) DeKalb, Illinois.
The property is legally described as:
PART OF ST. MARY’S CHURCH PROPERTY ON PART OF LOTS 6 AND 7 IN BLOCK 6
OF HUNTLEY’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DEKALB, SITUATED IN DEKALB
COUNTY, ILLINOIS. (P.I.N. 08-23-107-009)
All interested persons are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above.
Interested persons are also encouraged to submit written comments on this proposal to the City of
DeKalb, Community Development Department, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, 60115
by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, 2016.
Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748-2364.
Christina Atherton, Chairman
DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission
City of DeKalb
Citizen Response Form
329 Pine Street, Setback Variance Request (Var)
Owners Name: _____________________________________________________________
Property Address: ___________________________________________________________
Basic Input:
□ I support the proposal.
□ I support redevelopment generally, but would like to see specifics before I decide.
□ I do not support the proposal.
Written Comments:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
St. Mary’s Church