Planning & Zoning Commission

AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission September 14, 2016 6:00 PM A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) C. CITIZEN COMMENTS (OPEN FLOOR TO ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON RECORD) D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. JUNE 15, 2016 MEETING E. OLD BUSINESS F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Action on a request by Stephen and Teresa Irving for Final Plat approval of Arrowhead Lane ReSubdivision 2. Public Hearing on a request by Pete Occhipinti to approve a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of twenty two (22) multi-family dwelling above the ground floor with an allowed commercial use (movie theater) on the ground floor located on Light Commercial “LC”-zoned property. 3. Public Hearing on a request by by Corral Dyn, LLC for an annexation agreement amendment and to amend the PD-C Planned Development Commercial zoning of the property by approving the preliminary / final development plans for the subject property on an existing two lot subdivision that has one single tenant building and one multitenant building located at 2115 Sycamore Road. G. CONSIDERATIONS H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING 1. Public Hearing on a request by on a proposal by Adam Del Muro on behalf of William Halverson for a Special Use Permit for property at 1031 W. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb to allow for the operation of a vehicle repair and service facility. 2. Public Hearing on a City initiated text amendments to Article 5 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code to define the acreage by which “automobile, truck and recreational sales and rental” will be allowed as a permitted use in Section 5.08.02 and allowed as a special use in Section 5.08.03, and any related amendments deemed necessary pursuant to public hearing and review. 3. Public Hearing on a proposal by Amy Bemis and Property Owner Renee Bemis for a special use for property at 1890 Sycamore Road to allow an existing permitted “automobile, truck and recreation vehicle sales and rental” business to operate as a special use, and authorization pursuant to 13.02.06 to allow and regulate a monument sign that includes digital display, that otherwise complies with the height and area calculations of the UDO. J. ADJOURNMENT PZC067-16 ITEM D1  DRAFT 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 a6 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 1. Public Hearing on a Special Use Request for a conversion of a Single Family Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 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 deadline for application and does not believe the matter should be continued.  Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 3 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. Brian Morsch, 404 S. Third Street, lives a few blocks away from the property. He is in Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4 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 RC- 1 zoning was created. The survey of the neighborhood when RC-1 was created not only  Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 5 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 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. Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 6 of 6 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 29 th 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. 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  Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 7 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. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 8 of 8 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, DeKalb Illinois.  Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 9 of 9 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, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 2016 Page 10 of 10 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 ITEM F1  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMO PZC066-16 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Derek Hiland, LR Planner DATE: September 9, 2016 RE: Arrowhead Lane ReSubdivision – Final Plat Stephen and Teresa Irving is requesting approval of the Final Plat of the Arrowhead Lane ReSubdivision, a re-subdivision of Lots 100 and part of Lot 101 in Kishwaukee Park Area 2. The lots are on the southwest corner of Arrowhead Lane and Greenwood North. The original plat for this property included two lots oriented in a north-south fashion. The request is to re-subdivide the lots into one larger lot now oriented in a east-west fashion. Lot 1 will be occupied by the current house and future garage. The Final Plat complies with the original intent of having single family housing on single family residential lots. Approval of this subdivision request, in addition to City Council approval, will require a swap of property between the City and the owner to acquire additional right of way and donate right of way to have the lot lines follow the sidewalk, as well as a procedural waiver of the Preliminary Plat requirement. Discussion The existing lots total approximately 99,868 square feet in size and are zoned “SFR-2” Single Family Residential. The existing zoning lot meets the minimum lot dimensions as required by the UDO. One house and a proposed garage addition, located on the proposed Lot 1 of Arrowhead Lane Resubdivision, would face Arrowhead Lane. The UDO requires that minor subdivisions meet minimum standards in order to be approved by the City of DeKalb. The UDO states that Minor Subdivisions must not have buildings or significant structures on the land to be subdivided, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must waive the requirement from Article 15.04.02 prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. This is a procedural requirement that would simply require preparation and approval of a preliminary plat prior to preparation and approval of a final plat. This requirement is intended to prevent developers from completing subdivisions through a series of “minor plats” of two or three lots. Such requirement is rather burdensome in this instance. PZC066-16 Analysis The proposed Final Plat was submitted for review by City Staff and approvals were received from City Engineering and the Community Development Department. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of Arrowhead Lane ReSubdivision, including the waivers from Article 15.04.02 of the UDO. Please feel free to contact the Community Development Department with any questions you might have regarding the subject proposal. PZC066-16 Page | 2  FINAL PLAT OF. . ARROWHEAD LANE RESUBDIVISION A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 100 AND PART OF LOT 101 IN K!SHWAUKEE PARK AREA 2, A SUBDIVISION IN PART OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. -------~--==LEGEND==---------- Note: Due to insufficient subdivision plat data and missing survey markers, the east line of • Lot 100 .can not be located and staked. This 0 plat shows the approximate location of said east line. .·~ J":;:40' Found Open \ \ Total Area=53,236± Sq. Ft. Area in Lot 1=49, 658 Sq. Ft. \ Scale '~ End Pipe STATE OF ILLINOIS )55 COUNTY OF DEKALB ) 25' Building Setba k Une ' \ THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT STEPHEN P. IRVING LIVING TRUST AND TERESA J. IRVING LIVING TRUST ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE FOREGOING SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE AND HAS CAUSED THE SAME TO BE SURVEYED AND SUBDIVIDED AS INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED PLAT FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH AND DOES HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADOPt THE SAME UNDER THE STYLE AND TITLE OF "ARROWHEAD LANE RESUBDIVISION'; IN THE CITY OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AND FURTHER CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL LOTS SHOWN HEREON Lot ~ 1 LIE WITHIN DEKALB COMMUNITY UNIT DISTRICT NO. 428. ~ ...,. "' DATED THIS _ __ DAY OF__, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2016. \0'), "' ...,_ r-- t\J o" ~ Ql cP s· '\ \ vo.<... Ql ~ o.<... ..., 0 o'\ BY: BY:-----'--.....,--,----~ 0 -., .... '-1 v r-- v --~-~---~----- STEPHEN P. IRVING, TRUSTEE TERESA J. IRVING, TRUSTEE ...,. 0 r- ...,. 0 -- a • - a a 4 ARROWHEAD LANE DEKALB, ILLINOIS 60 115 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 50' Bui/dinrJ. Setback Une COUNTY OF DEKALB yS I, THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE CouNt'( AND $TATEAFORESAID, DO. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT STEPHEN P. IRVINQ ··AND TERESA. J. IRVING, PERSONALLY KNOWN TOMETO BE THE SAME PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE. SUBSCRIBED TO THE FOREGOING . . \ INSTRUMENT, AS.SA/D TRUSTEE$, APPEARED BEFORE ME THIS, Iff PERSON, AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE'( SIGNED AND DELIVERED Found Iron Pipe Fouhd Cap 281.27' \ ~1E/:f~~~f~ :!vt/ :01J:fJ:y ~~~ ~~E~AftDT:tf!!s~T~~~ ~~; lfift:s AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH. \ DATED THIS _ _ _ DAY O F - ' - - - - - - - - - ' 2016. STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )55 NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY OF DEKALB ) I, DOUGLAS J. JOHNSON, COUNTY CLERK IN AND FOR DEKALB COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ) STATE OF ILLINOIS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND )ss HAVE FOUND NO DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXEs, NO UNPAID CURRENT GENERAL TAXES, COUNTY OF DEKALB ) NO DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OR UNPAID CURRENT SpECIAL ASSESsMENTS AGAINST THE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AND PLATTED HEREON THIS..,..-~- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED PLAT WAS APPROVED BY tHE PLANNING DAY OF 201 AND ZONINE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS ON THIS ____ · DAY OF 20 1__ . DOUGLAS J. JOHNSON COUNTY CLERK CHRISTINA ATHERTON CHAIRMAN STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )55 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF DEKALB ) )SS COUNTY OF DEKALB ) THIS PLAT WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE RECORDER's OFFICE OF DEKALB THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED PLAT WAS APPROVED ON COUNTY, AFORESAID ON THIS _ __ DAY OF-~-----.,--' 201 _ _ , 2016, BY ORDINANCE NO. , BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COU;';,N""C"'IL:--:0::.-:F::-·-:::TH;-;£:=--::C::::ITY:;::-;-' OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DATED THIS DAY OF _ __..;._~-- AT _ _ __ O'CLOCK .M. AND RECORDED IN PLAT CABINET _ _, AT SLIDE 2016. NO. , AS DOCUMENT NO. --'------~--- BY: -----=~~=-c---- ATTES~--~~~~~~~~~-­ JOHN REY JENNIFER JEEP JOHNSON MAYOR CITY CLERK DOUGLAS J. JOHNSON DEKALB COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )SS COUNTY OF DEKALB ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I; THE UNDERSIGNED, HAS SURVEYED AND RESUBDIVIDED LOTS 100 AND 10 1 (EXCEPT THE WEST 18 FEET OF SAID LOT 10 1) IN KISHWAUKEE PARK AREA 2, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE PARCEL B OF THE ELLWOOD FARM PLAT ON PARTS OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK "R" OF PLATS, PAGE 30, ON OCTOBER 14TH, 1986, IN THE CITY OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED PLAT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY AND RESUBD/VISION AND THAT THE SURVEY MONUMENTS ARE CORRECT AS SHOWN. ALL DISTANCES SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF. THAT THE PROPERTY HEREON SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IS WITH THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DEKALB WHICH IS EXERCISING THE SPECIAL POWERS OF A· CITY PLAN. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE 'X'; AREA DETERWNED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AS SET FORTH ON THE F.I.R.M. 17037C0253E, HAVING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 2ND, 2009. Prepared by; . DATED AT DEKALB, ILLINOIS THIS _ __ DAY OF _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~, 2016. William E. Hanna Surveyors License No; 1842807 508 ·Pine Street DeKalb, Illinois 60.1 15 SHAWN R. VanKAMPEN (815) 756--'2189 FOR: STEVE IRVING ILLINOIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. 2710 Fax 748:-2532 JOB NO. WES 13692A LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE: NOVEMBER 30TH, 20.16 info@hannasurveyors.com ©  "CUNCHt.lt. CU VE NO. IG ,.;. . .~ . '·.< .·\.··.  (ifYOf ~ eKalb opportunity. innovation SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (Final Plat) A. APPLICANT INFORMATION ~(1'..{£ll 'P t ~Jf~ ' ..f""{ ~~t.-1,0 ~{Zl);}J4 1. Subdivider/Applicant: "?6oc ;-~ ,.Jr: A'!?- {)l)e_; L...f v10q Phone: r ' ' '-"\ I '"1 v, ( 12-U $j / c t6 p ~ ! I Address ,tj=~ cP ' ~~~il• - Of - ' :>'_- 2. Land Su rveyor: LJ.t-n0 ~~ 5U ?-fl t'Y O:rt~ Phone: lf:fo.- d-l r!j_ Address: IJ%¥££9?! it[~ ~:~~ - - - -- -- ......------ - - -- -- - Email: -- -------- 3. Eng ineer: _ __ l-=- J-+{_A_,___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Phone: _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Address : Fax: - -- -- - - ----- - -- - - -- -- - - -- - -- -- - Cell: - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - - -- - Email: - -- -- -- - - - B. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Subdivision Name: !CV~.J.l.\~ lA-Je ~!Z'S~ PiV/'S(o4 3. Street Address or Common Location: "' d-Lf A-10~ ~ ~ 1 4. Size (sq. ft. or acres of the total area being subdivided): . . ~. ~,-~d. c: . ~---1...;.. c....J:.J.. ()L ) ·- A_;__q-,.-,0~5t __ ~-·.~. ~.1_--___ 5. Proposed Number of Lots: _ _ _ I_ ______________ _ _ _ _ _ __ L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUME NTS\P&D PETITIONS\SUBDIVISION APPLI CATION (Final Plat).doc Last updated 7/22/09 by Patty Raih Page 1 of 4  C. CHECKLIST This checklist (shown on next page) is of items considered to be the minimum necessary to properly process your application. Each item must be checked by the applicant to signify that it is provided on this application form or on any other attached and/or supporting documentation. Failure to submit all required information will result in delays in the City's consideration of this application [UDO 15.07 (1 )]. If not applicable please indicate Check (X} Item N/A and explain ~ 1. Filing~. ~ 2. Twelve (12) copies of Final Plat document v~L\ v~ ?>!'/.kANN'Pr w\ J- M'-) LAPP:> ~ 3. One (1) copy of any private restrictions, covenants, etc. if such is not provided on the plat document r$ 4. One (1) copy of Statement on Maintenance, Operation, Restriction, etc. of any common land , open space , etc. if such is not provided for on the plat document ~(!K 5. Twelve (12) copies of Engineering Plans for all public improvements, detention areas, etc. ~ 6. Twelve (12) copies of Drainage Overlay (per Chapter 109, Ill. Rev. Statutes), if not provided within Engineering Plans 7. General Information a. Name of Subdivision on Plat b. Legal Description c. Key Map d. Points of Compass, Scale e. Acreage of Tract to be Subdivided (to 0.01 acre) f. Surveyor's Certification g. Utility Easement Grant and Reservation Statement h. Name and address of the owner(s) of the land to be subdivided i. School District Information 8. Signature Blocks on the Plat Document '--- a. b. Owners Plan Commission Chairman "'----- c. Mayor \--- d. City Clerk ~ e. f. DeKalb County Clerk DeKalb County Recorder \__ 9. Reference to and distance and direction from the nearest known permanent monument \. 10. Identification system for all lots and blocks along with all street names ~ 11. Dimensions, bearings, angles, radii, etc. of all lot lines, boundary lines, and rights-of-way expressed in feet and decimals of a foot. " 12. Dimensions and widths of all building setback lines, easements, utility easements, and rights-of-way L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (Final Plat).doc Last updated 7/22/09 by Patty Raih Page 2 of 4  If not applicable please indicate Check (X) Item N/A and explain ~ 13. Description of the material and location at all survey monuments, bench marks, reference corners, etc. \...__ 14. Notation of the size of each lot, in square feet or to 0.01 acres 15. Public Utility Concurrence Statements a. DeKalb Sanitary District T- b. Commonwealth Edison ~ c. d. Northern Illinois Gas General Telephone and Electric "----- e, Warner Cable Television 16. Public Agency Concurrence Statement a. Illinois Department of Transportation b. DeKalb County Highway Department c. Applicable Drainage District d. DeKalb Comm. Unit School District No. 428 e. DeKalb Park District -\ - f. DeKalb County Health Department D. The applicant hereby agrees that this application will be placed in a Plan Commission agenda only if it is completed in full. Generally, this plat request will be considered by the Commission approximately 21 days after this applicant receives written notice from the Community Development that the application is completed in full. E. The applicant has read and completed all o~~ information and affirms that it is true and correct. f~~~~ 1~ {JJ:if 11 L~~11Ji &-M*=~kt~ G.vc! ~ IJ.-.JtJtj )" Ap icant 0 AI L ,_r;/. ·11 ,1 Date f ' . ~ ~~~~ . r~~'-7' . ~~~N-Jb, tfI ~Ltv>{- Applicant J Date ~#?f I ;L' :M t1o ..... OFFICIAL SEAL THO PHAM ~ NOTARY P_UB_LIC, STATE OF IlliNOIS My CommiSSion Expires July 2, 2018 L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (Final Plat).doc Last updated 7/22/09 by Patty Raih Page 3 of 4 Subscri~d--~ sworn to befa4 ~e . L This i f - day of a¥'~ ,A;/ r ..b . OFFICIAL SEAL THO PHAM NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINDrS My Commission Expires July 2, 2018 Notary Public - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Staff Use Only _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Planning & Development Division City Clerk Signature Is application completed in full? _ yes _no Date Received: - - - -- - - - - - -- Received By: - - - - -- - - - - - -- Hearing Date (to be scheduled only if application s completed in full):--- - - - - -- - - - - - - - L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\SUBDIVISION APPLICATION (Final Plat).doc Last updated 7/22/09 by Patty Raih Page 4 of 4 ITEM F2  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 9, 2016 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose Obtain a Special Use Permit in order to allow the construction of 22 units on two floors above existing first floor space designed and previously used as an indoor theater that’s been vacant for several years B. Address 1015 Blackhawk Road C. Access One on Blackhawk and one on Hillcrest D. Size 105,863 Square feet or roughly 2.4 acres E. Existing Zoning “LC” Light Commercial District F. Existing Land Use Vacant Theater and paved parking area G. Proposed Land Use Same as above but with a two floor addition with each floor having 11 units (22 units total) H. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North – LC, PDR Parking lot, restaurant and apartment uses. South – MFR-2, Apartments and rooming houses. East – MFR-2, Apartments and rooming houses. West – LC, PDR, 2-story mixed used development, retail uses and apartment complexes. I. Floodplain Not in the floodplain J. Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial PZC065-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - SR CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant requests approval of a special use permit for a proposed addition of two floors of residential units accommodating 22 dwelling units above an existing theater use at grade level that has been vacant for several years. Additions at the northeast and southwest corners of the building to accommodate entrance and exiting requirements for the new upper residential uses are also shown on the plans. Other than the special use identified above, the applicant’s application included no other requests for variations or relief from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or other City Codes. Pursuant to direction from the applicant, explained later, the following documents are considered part of the applicant’s submittal: 1. Survey document entitled “GKC Theaters, Inc.” prepared by Survey-Tech consisting of 1 sheet and dated August 2, 2016, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This document represents the current proposed site plan, showing the proposed layout of the parking lot and parking spaces, and according to the applicant, supersedes the “Proposed Site Plan” shown on Sheet T1 in Exhibit 7. 2. A one sheet document labeled “A2”, showing the first floor cinema layout of the first floor, but marked Second Floor Plan, which is not dated or identified as to who prepared the document, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 3. A handwritten letter from the applicant dated August 2, 2016 asking staff to proceed with the paper work submitted to the Board, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 4. A color elevation (east side), entitled “Blackhawk Apartments at Campus Cinema”, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 5. A one sheet “narrative”, not dated or signed, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 6. A lighting and photometric plan entitled “Blackhawk Tower”, prepared by U.S. Architectural/Sun Valley Lighting, consisting of 1 sheet and dated 5/9/16, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 7. A document entitled “Proposed Renovation to Campus Cinema Blackhawk Apartments”, prepared by ADG Design and Services, Inc. consisting of Sheets T1, L1. A1, A2, A3, and A4, latest revision dated 6/21/16, attached hereto as Exhibit 7. NOTE: The “Proposed Site Plan” shown on Sheet T1 and all of Sheet A2 was revised by the applicant in Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS As shown in the picture on the next page, the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Hillcrest Drive and Blackhawk Road. It is improved with a one story building containing roughly 15,200 square foot that operated as Campus Cinema Theaters before CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 2 of 12 being closed and remaining vacant for the last several years. The property has non- conforming building setbacks because the building is not greater than 30’ from the a residentially zoned property located along the west property line, it has a building setback from Blackhawk right-of-way of less than 40’, and has non-conforming parking pavements setback from the property lines. Note that Exhibit 1 shows a greater than 40’ setback from Blackhawk drawn to a building line that extends over what is labeled “sidewalk”. This sidewalk is actually a roof covered portico as shown in the picture on the right below. This setback should be measured to the portico as it does not meet the exception criteria for encroachment into a yard as defined in the UDO. An adjoining parking lot and Fanatico Italian restaurant are both located to the north. The parking lot used to be owned by the applicant until he sold it to a nearby multiple family building so they could meet their parking requirement. Multiple family and campus housing is located to the east and south, and a shopping center and a residential planned development abuts the west property line of the Subject Property. Subject Property  IV. ANALYSIS CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 3 of 12 Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 of this report represent written correspondence between staff and the applicant between the first part of July and the middle of August. This communication is referenced in this report. Provided below is a list of relevant code related issues for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s consideration with regard to this project: 1. Use and Parking. Section 5.07 of the UDO allows “dwelling units when located above the ground floor, with an allowed commercial use on the ground floor” as a special use in the LC Zoning District. It is important to note that even if a use is listed as a permitted use, it is not permitted “by right” as part of any expansion unless the proposed use or uses are or can be constructed to comply with all other provisions of associated City regulatory codes. For example, dwelling units (whether permitted or special) cannot be approved as part of an expansion to an existing use unless adequate parking exists or can be provided to accommodate both the existing use and the proposed expansion. Furthermore, when additional parking is required to support a building and use expansion and the existing parking lot is non-conforming, the City’s UDO requires the parking lot be brought into compliance as part of the expansion. Article 12 of the City’s UDO includes parking requirements for theaters based on the number of seats (1 parking space for every 4 theater seats), and for residential units based on the number of bedrooms in the units (1.5 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom unit and 2.5 parking spaces for 2 bedroom units). Parking requirements can be determined by evaluating 2 of the applicant’s submittals. Exhibit 2 represents the applicant’s most recent submittal showing his plans for the first floor theater use. It shows 4 screens located within the first floor theater use, with each theater screen providing 138 seats, for a total of 552 theater seats. This number of seats requires 138 parking spaces (552/4=138). Sheet T1 in Exhibit 7 shows the proposed mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units proposed. It shows 10, one-bedroom dwelling units requiring 15 parking spaces and 12, two-bedroom units requiring 30 parking spaces. Total parking spaces for the theater based on this data is 183 parking spaces. Exhibit 1 shows the applicant’s site layout plan accommodating 184 cars, or one more space than required based on the calculations provided above. This plan includes perimeter pavement setbacks as required. It incorporates a 45 degree angle parking design, which is effective in accommodating tighter spaces. Specifically, parking space depths of 19.7’ can be separated by a 12.5’ drive aisle, for a total dimension of 51.9’ for a drive aisle with 45 degree angle parking on both CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 4 of 12  sides. Three aisles of 45 degree parking on both sides can be accommodated within the 176.22’ feet lot width of the lot, while still leaving room for pavement setbacks from both the east and west property lines. The proposed site design shown in Exhibit 1 was submitted in response to earlier comments provided by staff, attached as Exhibit 8. It is important to note staff’s questions regarding the number of theater seats in that comment letter, which referenced the original plans still shown as Sheet A2 in Exhibit 7. Given the large amount of square footage within each theater, staff questioned why there were so few seats designated on the plans, because it appeared the space could accommodate roughly double the amount of seats. The applicant responded that the he assumed about half the number of seats because he had already divided two of the theater spaces in half by constructing walls, and that he intended to do that with the other two theaters, even though these divisions were not shown on the original plans. The applicant’s later submittal (Exhibit 2) shows these walls, drawn in by the applicant, who also labeled the unused space as “storage.” Staff cautions the Planning and Zoning Commission that this is deceptive and that the applicant is manipulating the seating numbers for the sole purpose of claiming compliance with parking regulations. The UDO does not specify any parking requirement for storage, so reducing the number of seats in each theater and designating the balance of the space as storage was used by the applicant as a means to reduce the parking requirement. Despite staff requests to show seating layouts on plans and/or be allowed access into the building to confirm seating layouts, the applicant did not respond and staff has not been able to confirm existing interior improvements and seating layouts. 2. Lack of Building Code Compliance. Even if staff could confirm seating layouts in divided theater spaces as discussed above, it is important to note that these divisions cannot be considered if the applicant can’t provide plans proving that they can be constructed in compliance with building codes. The applicant did not submit these plans despite staff’s requests. The City’s Fire Department has confirmed in their report attached as Exhibit 11 that the plans do not comply with code requirements as they do not provide adequate exiting. 3. Additional drive aisle and turning radii required. The UDO requires additional drive aisle widths and turning radii may be required to accommodate City of DeKalb fire vehicles or the aisle serves as the principal means of access to on-site building or structures. The City Engineer and the Fire Department have both commented that the narrow drive aisles require greater CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 5 of 12  spaces to turn large fire department vehicles at the end of each parking row and to maneuver around the north, east and south sides of the building. Turning templates should be provided at the end of each parking row and sufficient room provided to allow fire trucks to make turns at the end of each row without jumping curbs or landscape islands, crossing over the property lines, or driving over marked parking spaces where cars could be parked. As stated above, the Fire Department does not have enough room within the 18.4’ drive aisle on the north side of the building, the 12.5’ drive aisle provided on the east side of the building, or in the 16’ area on the south side of the building to stage fire department trucks in the manner that would be necessary to service the building during an emergency. A minimum distance of at least 20’. Comments from the Fire Department with regard to these issues are provided in Exhibit 11. 4. Compact Cars. Section 12.03.6 of the UDO makes provisions to allow for compact cars for multiple family residential uses. The Code provides for a maximum number of 25 percent of the spaces required for these residential uses to be reduced in size to 7.5 feet in width and 17’ in depth as measured perpendicular to the drive aisle. The proposed plan shows a total of 47 compact parking spaces, which is about 25 percent of the TOTAL number of parking spaces provided on the lot to serve both the theater and residential uses. However, only 11 compact parking spaces are allowed, which is 25 percent of the 45 spaces required to serve the multiple family use. The proposed site plan shows many of these compact car parking spaces located immediately east and south of the building, where as stated above it Item 3, the Fire Department does have enough room to stage its vehicles to service an emergency in the building. While up to 11 parking spaces may be designated for compact cars to serve the multiple family use, the proposed plan shows too many compact spaces and shows spaces in locations that are not acceptable to the Fire Department. 5. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. Section 12.04.5 of the UDO requires a minimum of 20 square feet of interior landscapes area be provided for each parking space in a parking lot. The proposed plan shows 184 parking spaces, requiring 3,680 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping (landscape islands). The submitted plan is substantially deficient of this requirement. For perspective, consider the standard size of a landscape island is roughly 9’x18’ or 162 square feet. Based on this assumption and the proposed number of parking space proposed by the applicant, a total of 23 landscape islands of that size would be required, when only 9 are shown on the plans. The UDO also provides that a landscape island should be provided for CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 6 of 12  every 20 parking spaces, however there are areas that the plan does not meet this requirement. 6. Perimeter and other Landscape Screening. Section 7.05 of the UDO includes landscape screening requirements between commercial and residential properties. This situation exists along the western property line at the north end. The Landscape Plan provided on Sheet L1 in Exhibit 7 does not even show a pavement setback along the west property line, therefore the proposed landscaping is not in compliance with Section 7.05 of the UDO. This section of the UDO also requires a 6’ tall “sight-proof fence or wall”. While the newest site plan (Exhibit 1) does include a note indicating a “6’ high fence” along the west property line adjacent the residential properties, no fence details were provided to determine whether it is “sight-proof”. Given the deficiency of the Landscape Plan as described above, a full landscape plan analysis was not completed as it is already not compliant with UDO requirements and no variations were requested. 7. Maximum Gross Square Footage. Section 5.07.06 of the UDO states that “a principal building, in which one or more uses may locate, shall not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area.” The proposed gross square footage of the existing theater and the new residential is 49,785 square feet, or nearly double the allowed square footage. No variation from this requirement was requested as part of the application. 8. Nonconforming Expansion Section 19.04.1 of the UDO provides that structures with non-conforming setbacks can be expanded only if the expansion “conforms to the requirements of the Ordinance and does not expand any dimensional nonconformity. The applicant was advised (as shown in staff correspondence in Exhibit 8) that it would be necessary to step back the residential expansion in the area where the project adjoins residential on the west side or request a variation. The applicant did neither. 9. Structural capacity to accommodate 2 story addition. As part of the formal review of this application with various City staff, it was noted that the existing theater has been vacant for many years and that it may be in a state of disrepair, and potentially not capable of accommodating the structural load CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 7 of 12  of a two story addition. The structural integrity of the foundation, load bearing walls and the roof should be evaluated by a professional hired by the applicant, and the report provided to the City before any further consideration of allowing a 2 story addition to this building. 10. Storage Use. The attempt by the applicant to reduce the parking requirement by dividing each theater in half with a wall and calling half of each space “storage” has not been designed or shown on the plans in a way that meets building code exiting requirements, and is deceptive at best. In order for the City to seriously consider a plan that reduces the size of each theater, additional information is required to show how code compliant exiting can be accomplished, and how the storage space is to be reasonably used. Designating such a large area of space within the original theater space as “storage” without providing any real plans to show both spaces will function could be an attempt to show something on the plans that could later be changed with no way to accommodate the required additional parking that switching the storage space back to a theater would require. 11. Dumpster Not Enclosed. Section 17.11 of the UDO requires the dumpster to be enclosed with materials similar in character to that of the principal structure. The plans do not comply with this requirement and no variation was requested. 12. Incompatible exterior elevation construction materials. The image on the left below shows the existing exterior building materials used on the first floor. Note that there are 2 distinct materials and colors used. The proposed plans call for both split face CMU block and aluminum siding, both of which are different from existing materials. This use of materials is also not consistent with the existing character of the nearby properties which utilize common materials and design technique on all four building elevations as shown in the image on the right below. The proposed exterior elevations would be completely incompatible with surrounding uses. CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 8 of 12 13. Inconsistency between submitted plans and plans not prepared by professionals as required by the UDO. As stated above, Exhibit 8, 9, and 10 were provided to show staff’s written correspondence with the applicant. In response to the July 6th letter from staff shown in Exhibit 8, the applicant resubmitted documents attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. Revised Landscaping and Lighting plans were not submitted to coincide with the new site plan. As a result the Landscape Plan does not comply with codes as it does not even show the same landscape areas as the revised site plan. The Lighting Plan also was not revised to relocate fixtures according to the revised site layout. Staff deems them to be incomplete and inaccurate. Staff does not recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council approve incomplete or inconsistent plans. It is also important to note that some planning documents are not prepared and signed by professionals, as required by the UDO. 14. Review Process and Direction from the Applicant. Staff made multiple attempts to advise this applicant regarding the process to either gain compliance with City Codes or request necessary variations, as outlined in Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 of this report. When the applicant resubmitted plan documents shown as Exhibits 1 and 2, staff commented to the applicant that circulation in the new plan appeared too tight to accommodate fire department movements around the corners in the parking lot, and that the fire department may not be able to service the areas near and around the building given the limited aisle widths in those areas. Staff indicated a more thorough review of the plans would be completed by City staff (including the City Engineer and Fire Department) to determine compliance with all City codes, and that findings would be reported to the applicant for his use in finalizing any necessary plan revisions and prior to publishing for the public hearing. The applicant, however, was adamant that he “was done” and that no further City reviews or comments were necessary, as he was confident his plans complied with City codes. Staff also pointed out that revisions to the lighting and landscape plan would be required to be consistent with CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 9 of 12  the revised parking lot layout. Specifically, the applicant was informed that the lighting plan on file was not accurate as the location of light pole would now fall in various areas that would interfere with parking spaces and/or maneuvering areas due to the modifications to the parking lot design. Despite staff’s efforts, the applicant informed staff in writing that the documents in hand constituted his entire application and that they were to be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. V. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USES Section 14.03.05 of the UDO states that in making a recommendation to approve a special use, the Plan Commission shall consider and adopt findings in each of the following listed standards. Each standard is listed below in bold, and is followed by a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission may consider based on staff’s review and either modify or adopt in its recommendation. a. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. For the reasons enumerated above in this staff report, the proposed special use does not comply with all provision of the applicable district regulations. b. The proposed special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is to be located or to the public welfare at large. For the reasons enumerated above in this staff report, the proposed special use has not been designed to accommodate on-site parking, on-site circulation, the accommodation of emergency vehicles, landscaping standards, and design standards, all of which are intended to protect the public welfare at large. c. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the special use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the special use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to: (1) The location, nature and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences on the site; and (2) The nature and extent of proposed landscaping and screening on the CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 10 of 12  proposed site. The proposed plans are not compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed building will incorporate 4 different building materials, and landscaping does not meet the City’s UDO, particularly when adjacent to the existing residential property to the west. d. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The applicant did not submit any plans to determine whether there is adequate utility and drainage facilities on the property. Staff is not aware of any drainage complaints on file with the City. e. The proposed use, where such developments and uses are deemed consistent with good planning practice, can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the district; can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area; shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located; and is deemed essential or desirable to preserve and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of DeKalb. The applicant has not provided plans or documentation to prove that this project can be constructed safely or that the addition of 22 units will not generate a parking problem, particularly if the spaces designated as “storage” on the plans are some day returned to a theater use. The applicant has also not demonstrated that the structure is capable of accommodating the structural load of a two story addition, particularly given that the extended vacancy and lack of maintenance within the existing building could have created a breeding ground for mold and other conditions that would not structurally support this addition. Professionally prepared signed and sealed reports should be provided for the City’s review, or access to the interior of the building should be provided before the City considers any favorable action on any addition to this building. VI. CITIZEN INPUT One letter was received in response to the notices that were sent out. The owner of the Fanatico property located to the north wrote the following comment: “I would support the request ONLY with the following conditions: 1. New retail is added to the first floor and occupied prior to apartment rental. 2. A covenant disallowing Section 8 use of any apartment.” CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 11 of 12 Additional citizen input is made possible via the public hearing to be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is unfortunate that the applicant chose to abandon the process and direct staff to move his case forward to the public hearing phase before the Planning and Zoning Commission because the applicant did not work with staff to consider site plan revisions that were necessary to allow code compliance, did not submit a set of plans that were consistent with the final site plans, and did not identify and request or pay application fees for any variations as part of the application. A residential expansion on this site is possible if designed correctly and a proper application is filed. The applicant’s choice to abandon the process, however, leaves too many unanswered questions and an inability for the Planning and Zoning Commission to make findings on the standards for special use that can support the project. There is inadequate parking, especially considering that certain parking spaces shown on the plan would have to be removed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The applicant’s proposal to reduce the parking burden by converting half of the theater space to storage or another use is not wrong, but it needs further definition and plans need to be provided that prove the multiple uses can be constructed to meet building codes. Finally, the Landscaping and Lighting Plans are not consistent with the most recent site plan presented by the applicant and no variations were requested. In addition to staff’s efforts to communicate what was needed, staff had numerous meetings with the applicant in City Hall, and made several attempts to advise the applicant on what was needed. The applicant has not met the burden of providing documentation that the proposed special use meets the requirements or standards outlined in the UDO, and has not requested variations or relief for the City’s consideration. Unless the applicant withdraws the application and requests permission to start with a new application and provide new plans for review, staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend denial of the requested special use. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following sample motion: Based on the submitted petition, staff report, and testimony presented for Case #PZC-11-2016, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings provided is Section V, Standards of Special Uses, and recommend to the City Council denial of the requested special use. Respectfully Submitted, Jo Ellen Charlton Derek Hiland CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 12 of 12 August 26, 2016 Dear Property Owner: The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will consider requests by Pete Occhipinti to approve a special use permit allowing the construction of multi-family dwelling units on LC-zoned property. The subject property is located at 1015 Blackhawk Road and is situated at the corner at Hillcrest and Blackhawk Road. If this request is approved, the Applicant would be permitted to construct apartments above the Campus Cinema building with twenty two (22) new dwelling units on the property. The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will review these requests at their regular meeting of September 14, 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 250 feet of the above-mentioned property, I encourage you to attend this meeting to learn about and comment on the proposal. I also encourage you to submit any written comments you may have on the proposal no later than Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5PM. The enclosed comment sheet is included for your convenience. If you wish to contact your Alderman regarding this request and you live or reside in the First Ward, David Jacobson is your Alderman and he can be reached at 847-809-2074. If you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact the Community Development Department at (815) 748-2060. Sincerely, Derek Hiland Derek Hiland Planner Enclosures CC: Mayor, City Council, City Manager DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Pete Occhipinti, Applicant  Citizen Response Form 1015 Blackhawk Road SUP Request Owners Name: _____________________________________________________________ Property Address: ___________________________________________________________ Basic Input: □ I support the Special Use Permit proposal. □ I support the proposal in general but would like to see specifics before I decide. □ I do not support the proposal. Written Comments: PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 2 of 4 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on or after September 14, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on a petition by Pete Occhipinti to approve a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of twenty two (22) multi-family dwelling above the ground floor with an allowed commercial use (movie theater) on the ground floor located on Light Commercial “LC”-zoned property. The property is legally described as LOT 706 IN THE TWELFTH ADDITION TO ROLLING MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK “R” OF PLATS ON PAGE 9, ON APRIL 14, 1976, AS DOCUMENT NO. 392887 IN THE RECORDER’S OFFICE OF DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALL SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DEKALB, THE COUNTY OF DEKALB AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. (PIN: 08-15-151-011) The property is commonly known as Campus Cinemas and located at 1015 Blackhawk Road. All interested persons are encouraged to submit written comments on this proposal to the City of DeKalb by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5PM, and are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above. Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748- 2060. Christina Atherton, Chairman DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission City of DeKalb PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 3 of 4 ...... ...... 0 0'1 iii CD (") ~ Ill " ~ ;;o Ill 0 c. PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 4 of 4  CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY N STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ( ss COUNTY OF OGLE ) s I, Dale E. Wallace, an Illinois Professional Land Surveyor, hereby certifY that the fo11owing described I property was surveyed by me or under my direct supervision. I further certifY that this plat is a true and correct representation of said survey to the best of my *- !f LOT 7 I knowledge and belief. Dimensions are given in feet and 70' .I decimals of a foot thereof. Bearing shown hereon arc in degrees, minutes and seconds. Bearings are for zoNtNG LC I description purposes and relative only to each other. ~~-------~- 176. 22' - - - - - - - I OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED: Lot 706 in the I Twelfth Addition to Rolling Meadows Subdivision, a subdivision of part of the Northwest Quarter of Section L 15, Township 40 North, Range 4 East of the Third t Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Book "R" of Plats on page 9, on April 14, EDGEBROOK 1976, as Document No. 392887 in the Recorder's Office of DeKalb County, Illinois, all situated in the City of DRIVE DeKalb, the County of DeKalb and the State of Illinois. I Dated this 29th day of July, 2016, A.D., at the office of I Surve~~· . . . .- ~~~ Dale E. Wallace, I11ino is Professional t 10' I I Land Surveyor No. 35-2821 "'i'5 (_) t "-- :t: eJ I li: "':i: 1i; "' 6lct. I es 00) t£ ~ I ~ ib f?J '___, ct. Cl 00) ~ I ~ ' ___, I - <:) c' I .~ -0 ro 0:: fi: I - c,d' c,O-# ~(;- 0 (X) I "' .~ sUB· (_) ~ N N <D . ""~ .~ 0~ (;- l{) I f:S ~ "$ •"' L ~ <D t ca t KIMBERLY LOT 706 r I DRIVE I 104720.83 SQUARE FEET I I I I ----i I 1n · - - D DUMPSTER m=======~======~\ "-DO-± NOT EN1ER SIGN I I I eJ e:::5 ~ I ~ I I 'll I I I f'l 0: (3 < I ~ (/) I 11.9' ~ ~~_J ""' I Cl ~ 0 ~ u I u lHEA TRES ..., 0 N 10' < ~ I ~ I i2.5' I LOT 703 I I I ' . I L - - - DRIVE -- - ---- - - - -- - --- l \ -.J 0 I I ( PARKING SPACES - -- J - ------ \ 137 REGULAR SPACES 47 COMPACT SPACES 184 TOTAL SPACES \ \ LEGEND SURVEY-TECH A DIVISION OF C.E.S., INC. \ \ BOUNDARY OF SURVEY PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FIRM LICENSE NO. 184-001260 P.O. BOX 634 .. ROCHELLE, ILLINOIS 61068 e MONUMENT FOUND (815)-562-8771 FAX: (815)-562-6555 \ \ B 0 P.K. NAIL FOUND IRON PIN SET DATE: 8-02-2016 SCALE: 1" = 3o' DRAWN BY: DEW REVISED: -~ BUILDING SETBACK LINE \ - - - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE GKC THEATRES, INC. -~~~~~~~~~~~- UTILITY EASEMENT LINE \ FILE NUMBER: ACAD: S19416 DEKALB COUNTY S194-16  l:l&' -2' .,!<----------------------------'-------~--------------------------- -- -------------- - - LINE OF \lEW FLOOR ABOVE -------~ I - - - -- - - - - - Q ___ I1ENCASED LINE OF NEW ,5TEEi.. COLUMN FLOOR ABOVE ----- ----------' TO SUPPORT INEW FLOOR I /ABOVE I ·-~~ 0;> r--. i;; UP ~1"C> ~G.:-.!? Sn ta..AG: e:- S)rJ~t-t&e .5r'.oAA&~ NEW I LOBBY FOR I RE51DEN~5 I , I I I I ' I SECONDARY~ ENTRY / SCREEN -1 SCREEN -2 SCREEN -3 SCREEN -4 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS I 138 SEATS ' II II '/;;> ~ I ' --------------- d I CINEMA L0!3!3Y ------~ ,--------------- -- -------- -- -- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____j NEW L0!3!3Y FOR RESIDENTS UP CINEMA L0!3!3Y 1{,'-4' POTTICO ;ll'-lel' - Jr/7.'~~r.s~E~c7.o~N~D~F~Lo~o~R~P~L~A~N~~~N~E~W~A~D~D~I~TI~O~N___________ Et~ CINEMA BUILDING: \ A3...,. 118' = 1'-0' "_, -EXISTING AREA : IS,200 SQFT. -ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: I,IIS SQ.FT. SHEET -TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA: 16 ,3IS SQFT. A2 OF i,  ( -f) ~\ ~ -- (;\ ...., B (I) 1\. 0 -::::: r ~ <b G ) ~ -·0- :r- (\ " "G ")) fJp.... 0 <. :r:. ~ rt 1::> I + [ )- Exhibit 3 e - -(- + 0> + ;r + c.. ~ + -.- -l.. VJ ro ~ 0 ~ "] """':!. ~ ~ ~ ~ ") ~ f -\> 9J ~ ....... f'  !11 !!!I - Exhibit 4 BLACKHAWK APARTMENTS AT CAMPUS CINEMA  Exhibit 5 PROPOSED AfYI'S AT CAMPUS CfNEMA NARRATIVE My intent is to remodel the Campus Cinema, a 4 screen movie theater by adding a second and third floors to the existing campus Cinema. The ground floor shall remain a theater as it is now. The second and third floors will serve as a residential apartments. The added floors will consist of 11 units each floor totaling 22 units for the building. The ground floor will have an addition to serve as entrance and fire stairs. These addition will be on the northeast corner & on south side west end. This property is in center of multi-family residential area. The theater is the only non residential structure in the area. I see no negative impact on the adjacent property by remodeling this property into a multi-family apartment building above the existing cinema theater. Mostly all adja,cent properties are apartments. I feel since the character of the area is consistent with multi-family dwelling building this project will only enhance, complement, and increase the adjacent property value.  EXHIBIT 6 •0 . 1 •0. ? "o. 7 •D. 5 •0. c •0. : •0. 7 •(). 6 28'0" MOUNTING HEIGHT (25' POLE+ 36" BASE) ":::. 6 '"o. ~ •-J.::. 'o 1 .J.l l'~uy ">~• l.fJ'(JJ-~ L:hC. D.S •0. c . ~ 0. J •J. 5 .u. ~ •u.o •u.o •0, D •D. ~ •0. 1 •l.? •,L:, .1.2 10 1 .0 \.--r,·,<:\':..,,4~- "!. R •0. 3 •0.0 •0.0 Arrangement Description Lum. Lumenslum. Watts • LLF •o.:: •0. 3 ~) ';';;/ "? . - ·\. 3 "o.4 '"c.1 •0.0 •0.0 . SINGLE SINGLE RZR -111-M-SOPL ED-700m A-NW • RZR-IV-FT-80PLED-700mA-NW 17688 ' 16647 i 172.9 173.4 • 0.920 '0.920 •0. / ! RSM-2 . 2@ 180 DEGREES RZR-VSQ-M-80PLED-700mA-NW 18989 ' 173 • 0.920 "o. 1 •0.0 "o. 1 •0. 1 •0. 2 •2.8 .2 . ,; •0. l "o. o -~-------·-~~- -·- - -···········- •(I . 1 •(). 1 . 0. 2 •C.4 ..0. 7 •3 ._4 •3.0 •.., ,. L..,. ·-' . •""-'(}.___ 1 '6 2. "o.2_"o.o .iLl •0 8 - . . .U-.."-~ . 7 .1-. •0. 0 -·-EDGEBROOK ·····-···-----·~· ·---·-- Calculation Surnrnary •0. J 'o s •:,. . l •0 1 "o. !.:!. •:_;. 5 "o. 8 DRIVE La be PARKING LOT 'CalcType !:luminance · Units :Fe Avg : 2.32 Max 4.3 M'n 0.6 A\lg/Min, Max/Mini. 3.87 7.17 ·- 'o 1 ~J. 5 •0.8 •0. l "o !,i ~J' 5 ·~ "o 1 "o. ~ •0.5 "o. 9 .u.- "o'" "o.h • 0.5 "o. 9 ' ~J.1 "o L "o. "o. 2 •0. 1 "o.z "c. "o s "o.~ "o. 1 •0. 2 •c. "o. 1 "o. 1 •0.5 •0. ~ ..0. 2 •0.0 "o 1 "o. 1 • ' "·!"' . .,i "o. 5 .0. 2 •0. 1 "o. 1 •J. ~ "o s "o. 1 . f3 • "o . 1 "o. 1 J. . 0. 5 "o. 7 "o. "o. "o. a . 1 1 0.5 ..0. R 'o 1 "o. 1 "J. "o. s •0. l "o.1 ~J . "o. R 'o 1 •0. 1 "o. 3 •0.8 "o. 1 •0. 1 "o. 7 '"i .1 •0. l "o. 1 •o.e •0.5 "o. s '\ . "o. 1 •0. 1 •0 ..l •0. ~. •0. 1 "o. 1 •0.3 .0.5 •O.B •0. 1 •n.> ~). 3 •o.s "o. 1 "o. 1 ~J~ "o. s .0. :~ •0. l "o. 1 •1). .1• 0.5 •0.8 . '-..0 "o. 1 •0 . 1 "u. ~- "u. Y "1 . "o. 1 •0.1 •IL "o. '-' "o. 9 ~!. --, "o. 1 :·.. o "o o •0.::. •0. 3 "o. s •0' 9 . . 2)/'].1 ,· •_., ( .•. ' -., •2.0 ··-;. "t . b --i--,,81 :3 •2. 1 •2..--.-cr /;!v.s; "o.3 . ~J. 3 "o.1 ·~,. () •0.0 KIMBERLY / •0. 1 •0. l •0.3 •0. 5 ·o . 2 0 '~1-~ • -.. ri'·- •2.0 •0.) •0 (I 1. l. t-,_:_, l . I ~).J "o.1 ·~,. 0 . . • () . •0. 3 "o. s •(1.8 ' •:-. 1 •lJ.U c DRIVE "o. 1 0. l \'"' \_. g .2 . .3 h,~ ' 1.6 l .8 \. 2 ~).s:·o.l "o. 1 "o. 1 iJ. J ·o. ", •0. 8 ~l.s '"o.-; ·~-. 1 •0 0 •0. 1 "o. J •0 '~ "u. 1 ~1.7 "1 . s "i' 3 "o. 5 •::i. l 0 \ 5 2,. 2 ·''·' •0. 1 •0. 1 •0·.) •,, . 7 . 3 '2 ".o ' 4 \.s''"l.8 . . 2' 0 ' 2'. 4 ·: . 7 "o." ·~ . 2 •0. (1 ·------ "' .........., ............ "o. 1 •0. 1 "o. z.. ·"o .' 'r;s 1.0 •L • '. 0 . ?.S< ";_.. 7 ":;. t ·- . 2 •1.5 • . 2.0 2. 4 "o.-; "o. o •0. l •0. 1 0 1 • 4,~-~t-:--9"·--~2--- •!.4 "1 . 4 •~ . 2 •0 C• ...•. -z~··'Q --:"~h-:i-· ~2---:--5----~2.. ,--5 ···.~2-.·.•.-3-~~::.·.-~2- .... '). -·---- 0 :; . <· ·-· --- --····~---·--·------"'" -- - .. ..·.·,-:.1 . ..··.· '.o. , I 2. 4 :•' /i "o. 1 •C•. l "o 2 "o . .: ·~-·. 5 • ·p. s. "o: D.' .... I I •1.3 •:: . $ •I)' 9 "o. 4 "o. L• "o. r- •f•. 1 'o 1 "o . 2 ":·. 4 "'" . .1}-'·\J.O,~. •2 • 8 •I). 6 . "-'r .o.c- o.:::~ 0 M II "o. c- "c·. 1 •O:. l •o. 2 "c . o = "n. c "o. 1 •:. 0 . o "o ill ell •0. c "o. o o "o. : ·c .o '.o "oJ) () (f). "o. (· •(•. 0 ·~ "0 .0 .. (t. 0 "'o . c.- "c.. o "o.o "o.-: ·: ' 0 THEATRES "o. c •0.0 "o:.o "o.c ·: ' 0 -9 "o. c "c. o o·. o o. c . . 4,2 I •0. c "c. o "oi. o "o. 1 . . } 2' 3. 0 c "o. c . .. •c. 0 0,. 1 0. 1 • I~ p . . (· ,: 0 ~ "o. 0 -~::J 1 "o. 4 .. "1. 1 •0. c "c. 1 o,_ 1 "o. 1 "c. :. ·c.:: •c-: 0 • • -------- •2:. 4 02' :-7 . ,"2 ; '·--._, \.7 ~).8 "o. ·- 3 • 0. 1 (.) •0. 1 •c. l • I~.) "c.: 3 ,... "2;. 2 2 •1.4 "o.~ ·~ '"o. 1 eel LOT 703 "o. 1 "o. s . .i I)' 4 6' 4 "c "o. s •0.5 "o. -s ~). 7 •0 .f. . (I_ C) •0 9 •0.!3 '"o. 7 "o. 3 ·- "o. 1 () (!) "o. 1 "c;. 2 ..o·. ~ •I]. 5 I "' "c . 6 . "o 6 "o. 7 "o ; "o. s . 0.9 ·~ • C· .':. - • 0. 1 (.) c eel a: "o. 1 "c. z "o. 5 "6. 7 c w "o. 1 "n. 6 •0. 8 ". • 1. •0 ' "o. 4 •I~. 2 •0 1 E ::J :s0 "u. 1 ":). 2 "o · "o . 7 •0.9 •o. "o. 'l "o. 1 1- ~ "o. 1 "o. 1 *o.,; \~o . 7 "o. s ·o,,; •0. :3 •D.:.. •0. 1 ~J.: •0. c :s <( FOUND CHI SE~ED f\;I}Gj3)9 •0 . 3 I ~ 0 1. 7 '"o. o "o. c IN SIDEWALK () "o:1 ~J. "o. 3 "'c,. 5 •o •0.2 "c·. 4 "o, ..J': ' .1 . l •0. 0 "o. c <( ....J "o.l ~J. -~--.? •J.4, "o.e •D. 0 "o.::: aJ "o. 1 ~J. •0.1 •c . 1 •0. l "o. 1 •0.0 "o. c DRI\!P Page 1 of 1  EXHIBITS 7 PROPOSED RENOVATION TO I ISSUED DATE ilm0.14 PARKING TABULATION SCI-lEMA TIC 4 DESIGN /DEVELOPMENT ONLY city oubmloolon 06.10201 IRAIJN BY•-- CAMPUS CINEMA 2ND 4 3RD FLOOR APT. SCI-lEDULE FOR PLANN lNG APPROVAL clt~ COMMENTS 06212 0 16 PRII.ET I 014X: 4 Tf-lEATER SCREENS = 138 SEATS EACI-l = 552 SEATS NOT FOR PERMIT 4 CONST. REVISED.___ BLACKHAWK APARTMENTS 552 SEATS I 4 = 138 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES APT 11 NUMBER OF GROSS AREA INDEX OF DRAWINGS: DEKALB, ILLINOIS BEDROOMS OF EACI-l APT. REQUIRED Tl-lEATER SPACES = 138 T1 TITLE SHEET: SITE PLAN, PROJECT INFORMATION L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN & SCHEDULE AFT 201 I 301 2 BEDROOM 1055 SQ.FT. A1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EMPLOYEES = 6 A2 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 150 SQ.FT. A3 2nd FLOOR PLAN AFT 202 I 302 I BEDROOM (12! 2 BEDROOMS 4 (10! I BEDROOMS = 22 TOTAL = A4 3rd FLOOR PLAN AFT 203 I 303 I BEDROOM ~43 SQFT. 45 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AFT 204 I 304 I BEDROOM ~43 SQFT. TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 183 SF ACES AFT 205 I 305 2 BEDROOM 1180 SQ.FT. TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = ~~~SPACES+~ NEW ADDITION TO CINEMA BUILDING PARALLEL SPACES = 208 SPACES AFT 206 I 306 800 SQFT. ·-· ~ ·-· I BEDROOM -PROPOSED RENOVATION WILL BE FULLY 2 BEDROOM SPRINKLERED ON ALL LEVELS 4 ALARMED AFT 201 I 301 1015 SQFT. AFT 208 I 308 2 BEDROOM 1015 SQFT. -PROPOSED RENOVATION WILL 1-lAVE RATED 3 HOUR SEPRATION BETWEEN CINEMA 4 RESIDENTS. AFT 20~ I 30~ 2 BEDROOM 1040 SQ.FT. EXISTING GROUND FLOOR = 15,200 SQ.FT. cinema bldg AFT 210 I 310 I BEDROOM 830 SQFT. PROPOSED ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: 1,115 SQ.FT. AFT 211 I 311 2 BEDROOM 1085 SQ.FT. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION: 16,135 SQH BLACKHAWK APARTMENT PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR ADDITION: 16,135 SQFT. AT CAMPUS CINEMA 4~,185 SQFT. for cinema bldg ~ TOTAL BUILDING AREA "'" "'ll .." '~ :J Q5• N .!.~ ~3 _., ~H ' 0 tflG; "'" ~~ ..J • 0:: Ulll w-IJ EAST VIEW - CONCEPT 0 >-- "' .... Ill <( ffi "'"EE 1l ~ / 0 <I) + "' = i G.~ o"t). 0:: L / I u 0 0 ~ w .-. m ~ L ~~(\0 ll_ \j <Ill \ w 0:: 0-' 8~ "' _J <)_'<J\1:)'6.~ ~ \ iii-- ~ ::> ::> .:q ............ \ <( 0:: c.:> ~ {j if Qu 9J L 0 0:: "' n.lii / / \ 616.22' Q_ f- ~~ u •I ., w.., 0 0:: Q_ Tllf<EE STORr CAMPUS CINEMA ADDITION \ ?J THEATRES u~..f- b t- <:[ \ II AND PROPOSED s~ (5 d) a z ()) (Jl APTS. &u/t-;; t- \ (]\ 0 70/o/1/ ~ _j _j - za o_ 10 \ ONE STORr ADDITION Q ~ _j ~ DRIVEWAY w Q \ d) ~ I Q\ _J _ 1_ 1 ~ I _ II J_ I ~. I I I ENTRANCE ---------- ~ I BLACKHAWK ROAD I I 0 ~--------l ,--------l t::Jt:rj ,-------- 0:: w 0 _J ~ N "<!- ~ 0 I u~ ::::> I ~ I I I I I rn ....... r.o r.o ~~ ~u 0:: w 1- I 1---i z I ~~ ~ Q_ 0 ;] I I <rn I I ~0 <t:rj I 0 0 >-- 8 n r.o Mt:rj t:rjtJj I I I ~ I I ~ I >- _J Q_ w 0:: w 0 (}{ 1- ~ _J w I ~ I I 0 I _J <( Q_ 0 II SHEET I ~ I I T1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE' I' - 60'-0' SCALE ~ II IF 1 Plant Material List CAMPUS CINEMA  13&'-2' 10'-0' v LINE OF NEW FLOOR ABOVE _.. ,r ' -----~- ' 'l - - - - - - - - - [ 1=~11"" "C.l=l""l ~ LINE OF NEW ::>I t:t:L.. COLUMN FLOOR ABOVE TO SUFFORT ~ b> NEW FLOOR ·~~",... "" ----- ;,. r-' "' UF NEW L066Y FOR :::>EN"' A I' " SECO~ ENTRY SCREEN -1 SCREEN -2 SCREEN -3 SCREEN -4 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS .,' ~ p I I I l I I I I c CINEMA L066Y n I I I NEW L066Y FOR RESIDENTS "'' §! UF <[ L: Ill ~ z -_j . ~ o- CINEMA L066Y ~ <Oo:i ::::::1 _J Q_<[ t--- L::'IL <[Ill " OCI ,; <:, MAIN EN ~,_"I - J ~ POTTICO ~ L lh'-4' y ~ ll ll ll ll ll ll ,---J 31'-10' - ,rr~~~'~S=E~C70~N=D~FL~O~O~R~P~L~A~N~--~N=E~W~A=D=D~IT~IO~N~---------~-~- CINEMA BUILDING: -EXISTING AREA : IS,21Zl!Zl 5Q.FT. - \.A3..; 1/8' = 1' -!Zl' _ -ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: I,IIS 5Q.FT. SHEET -TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA: 16,315 5QFT. A2 DF 4  13~'-2' I APT21Zl6 I I APT21Zl1 I I APT21Zl8 I I APT21Z'S I 800 SF. 1015 SF. 1015 SF. 1040 SF. BEPRM-1 BEPRM-2 BEPRM-2 BEPRM-2 LIVING RM/ BEPRM-1 BEPRM-1 BEPRM-1 PINING/ KITCHEN LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ PINING/ PINING/ PINING/ KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN "'t:; [] [] !21v!V 0 ~o [] r.:i ~TH pLoS. UTIL~ I ~ I ~ J) fX L___ 0 1~-~ i CLOS. : BEPRM-1 > CLOS. I - -·-·- ______ _j - [Q] [Q] APT-208 ~ I I BEPRM-1 BATrv [Q] ~ rr 01 g,~ rr---1--E..:I:.h, 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT [Q] ~ APT -21Zl1 ______ ..j I v r= LIVING RM/ LAUNDRY CENTER I PINING/ APT.21Zl6 KITCHEN I APT. 210 I LIVING RM/ I PINING/ KITCHEN DDDD1 ______ ..j I APT. 209 ~----- 830 SF. LAPT.205I D APT.21Zl!; 1-- -- 1180 SF. I I / ------..j -, APT. 211Zl : CLOS. <_, ~----- l_ ______ ~ 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT LOUNGE - EXERCISE ROOM APT. 21Zl4 ------..j I - APT. 211 rv BATH( BEPRM-1 BEPRM-2 L ____ _ p,giOIL APT. 21Zl3 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT ( t::d--t -l I STORAGE ROOMS I ------..j LIVING RM/ APT. 202 r- PINING/ ' l<; BEPRM-1 -------1 KITCHEN L APT -21Zl1 ( LAPT. 21Zl41 943 SF. LIVING RM/ PINING/ BEPRM-2 KITCHEN EJ T 0 I I v / r COl --il 11 ro I APT. 211 I 1085 SF. dl UTI __ [tj .lJ lon IL l~--1 IT~l- I ') r-- [] [ <[ L: Ill z . I= -_j o- If---it,, <Oo:i ::::::1 _J (ii Q_<[ dl LIVING RM/ U'" / L::'IL <[Ill I PINING/ ROOF BELOW / OCI ,J, LIVING RM/ BEPRM-1 / PINING/ KITCHEN / / LIVING RM/ KITCHEN BEPRM-2 / PINING/ BEPRM-2 / / KITCHEN / / / / // (}'_ 0 0 _J 12'-8' lb'-4' lL n G 0 w . <f)~ 30 ~~~~-~~S~E~C~O~N~D~F~L~O~O~R~P=LA~N~=~N=EW~~A~D~D~IT~IO~N~---------- ~-._ W-l z[Q ,~...,~ 1/6' = 1'-~· 16,13!; SQFT. SHEET A3 DF 4  135'-2' I AFT. 3~1 I I AFT. 3~81 I AFT-3~SI le>'-IZ'' I AFT. 3061 800 SF. l0l5 SF. l0l5 SF. 1040 SF. E3EDRM-I E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-2 LIVING RM/ E3EDRM-I E3EDRM-1 E3EDRM-I DINING/ KITCI-lEN LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ DINING/ KITCI-lEN A ----- ~r---, DINING/ KITCI-lEN DINING/ KITCI-lEN ,-f3, ,TI-l l~v :V IJ ±2v :v DOWN Q,l O RFAR STAIRS I D ~ [] D 1Ril cP :_i_ ~~m D ~ D,1o rTT rWA TI-l : UTIL.w? pLOs. UTIL.w? K1 ~ X FL05. 0 ~~--~ 1~-- f€ ~T [>( ~--- 0 ~--~ n-----=o_e~~/ L. . - - ( I I CLOS. ~ ~ E3EDRM-I i " ..-> CLOS. : [Q] i [Q] AFT -3~8 I > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j E3EDRM-1 - [Q] ------~ E3ATfrv f- IIC -i 121~ t:i:t-\ 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT lnll l.;::Jj AFT- 3~1 ------~ I v r=r= LIVING RM/ I I LAUNDRY CENTER AFT. 3~~ : EJ DINING/ KITCI-lEN I AFT. 31~ I I~ I LIVING RM/ I DINING/ .9 DDDD1 ------~ - 1 AFT. 3~S 830 SF. KITCI-lEN I I D AFT. 3~& r------- ' --,-.,~,...,---r~ll AFT. 3~&1 I = r- L 1180 SF. ------~ - AFT. 31~ : CLOS. <( r------- 1 L·-·-·-·-·-·-·- 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT AFT. 3~4 r _ E3EDRM-I ------~ LOUNGE - EXERCISE ROOM I AFT. 311 E3EDRM-2 L _____ _ AFT. 3~3 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT I ------~ STORAGE ROOMS LIVING RM/ AFT. 3~2 I I DINING/ I E3EDRM-I --------1 pb KITCI-lEN I_ AFT-3~1 / L AFT. 3~31 <j43 SF. r LIVING RM/ DINING/ E3EDRM-2 KITCI-lEN I AFT. 311 I 1085 SF. <[ L: n I Ill z . I -_j o- I <Oo:i ::::::1 _J I Q_<[ I L::'IL <[Ill ) OCI LIVING RM/ UP / LIVING RM/ DINING/ DINING/ KITCI-lEN E3EDRM-I ROOF BELOW / / / "'"' ~ ' ~ / KITCI-lEN E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-I ! / LIVING RM/ E3EDRM-2 / <[ DINING/ / r:: Ill / z KITCI-lEN / / 0 < / / I- <[ ()[ I AFT. 3~31 I AFT. 3~21 AFT-3~1 I 0 0 _J tj43 SF. l50 SF. 1055 SF. lL 111>&'-l' 12'-8' 1~'-4' ~ :I . I-~ 30 lli_J z[Q - ,t-r....;.I.,...~+-T.....,H,.....IR_D----,.-F_L_O_O_R_P_L_A_N_-_ _N_E_W_A_D_D_IT_lO_N_ _ _ _ _ _ (j=. SHEET \~_.~ 118' = 1'-~' 1~,13& SQFT. A4 DF 4  Exhibit 8 July 6, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti Delivered and Received by Occhipinti at a meeting at City Hall on July 6, 2016 We have reviewed your special use application you dropped off at City Hall on June 29, 2016. This letter summarizes our understanding of your request, outlines deficiencies in your application that you must correct before your case can be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and provides you with code related requirements you should consider in your design if you wish to present a project for consideration that otherwise complies with City codes and zoning regulations. Project Understanding. Special use approval to expand a non‐conforming structure with non‐conforming parking to allow for construction of new residential uses above an existing first floor commercial theater use. Required Corrections to Application to Correct Deficiencies 1) Add Zoning classifications and boundaries to all properties surrounding your property. 2) Building setbacks from all property lines must be added to the plans. The building setback in the corner side is not shown to the outer part of the building. 3) Show location and construction details for dumpster enclosure 4) Given that parking for a theater use is based on the number of seats, the plans must graphically represent seat layout within each theater in the floorplan. If the size of the theaters has been reduced, the remaining space must be defined, and the square footage and other details must be indicated on the plans. Separate uses will require that access and exiting to the left over space be identified. Code Related Requirements Because you are proposing an expansion to a non‐conforming building with non‐conforming parking, compliance with the following requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) are required and will be evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as part of your request. You should consider revising your plans to address these code deficiencies or revising your application to ask for variations from these provisions of the UDO. 1. Parking surfaces adjacent to residential (east side) must be increased to a 10’ landscaped setback to comply with the Unified Development Ordinance. A significant portion of the parking lot is Page |1  adjacent to residential. Plans should be modified to provide the 10’ setback and landscaping. A redesign of the parking lot will likely also require modification to the lighting plan, so this plan should be revised as well. 2. The parallel parking that was added to the plans in the latest submittal does not accommodate code compliant two way traffic and will not be supported. The plans should be revised to maintain existing conditions. 3. Compliance with Article 12 needs to be taken into consideration regarding landscaping requirements. Plans will not be finalized for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission until they comply or you request variations from relevant sections of the Ordinance. Please have your Civil Engineer review the article for completeness and compliance. 5) A fence is required along the West property boundary where it abuts residential zoning. Fence details should be added to the plans. 6) Based upon our rough calculation 1,038 seats can be located within the four screening rooms. Either provide a floorplan showing the number of seats or allow us entry into the property where we can verify that 438 seats exist. 7) Does the storage use have its own doorway and considered a separate use from the code. 8) Lighting will likely get modified once the parking area is modified to account for the revised landscaping buffer. Revise lighting and photometric plans. 9) An interior side yard building setback of 30’ is required for that portion of the building adjacent to residential. It appears that part of building is not compliant with this requirement. Section 19.04(1) of the UDO provides that structures with non‐conforming setbacks can be expanded only if the expansion “conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance and does not expand any dimensional nonconformity.” Therefore, the plans may not show residential construction above with that non‐conforming setback or your application needs to request a variation from this provision of the Code pursuant to all the application requirements of 18.03. Please complete your revisions and resubmit. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, AICP, Principal Planner City of DeKalb Page |2  Exhibit 9 July 15, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti 3851 11th Street Rockford, IL 61109 Via Certified Mail and USPS Standard Delivery Dear Pete As you know, the attached letter was given to you and a woman you introduced as your wife (who was also in attendance) during a meeting with Derek Hiland and myself at Village hall on July 6, 2016. At that meeting, the general contents of the letter were discussed. Among other things, the letter outlines what City staff considers to be deficiencies in your application. Specifically, you were advised that your application did not include a request for variations that had been identified by City staff as part of your request in an effort to best advise you how to modify your application to comply with City codes. We advised you that if you requested that your application be placed on and Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda without including the identified variations, the staff recommendation would be to deny the requested special use for residential uses above first floor commercial due to the fact that your request included variations for which you did not apply. At our July 6, 2016 meeting, you also commented to us that your plans were not drawn correctly. Specifically, when we asked you about the individual size of each theater and noted that some of the theaters were different sizes, you specifically stated that each theater was exactly the same size and that if the plans looked different, they were incorrectly drawn by the person you hired to prepare the plans. You were informed then by City staff that it was important to have correct plans so that parking requirements could be accurately calculated for the special use request. At that meeting, you stated verbally that you did not intend to modify your plans to modify incorrect drawings, or to modify your special use application to include the variations identified by staff. You specifically requested that we should consider your application complete and schedule the public hearing for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Then, you came to City Hall on Monday July 11 and asked to see me and we had a meeting for about 30 minutes. At that meeting, we again discussed your application and the contents of the City’s July 6, 2016 letter. At that meeting, it was clear to me that contrary to the direction you gave at our July 6 meeting, you were reconsidering whether or not to modify your application. When I asked you whether you were going to modify your application to provides revised plans or to request one or more variations, you said you’d get back to me. Please note that based on the later July 11th meeting discussed above, the City will not consider your application complete and will therefore not schedule the public hearing until we hear from you with regard to your intent to modify your application or provide revised plans. If you revise your application or provide revised plans, City staff will need time to review these revised plans before the application is considered complete and the hearing is scheduled. If you decide to revise your application to add one or more variations, you need to complete that application, pay those fees, and comply with any additional submittal requirements outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance for variations. Finally, if you intend to proceed, please provide me with a time that City staff can inspect the interior of the structure. Given the extended vacancy within the existing structure, it is important to confirm the viability of the structure. It will also give us an opportunity to confirm parking based on use and occupancy. Please do not hesitate to contact Derek or myself if you have any questions. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner  Exhibit 10 August 18, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti 3851 11th Street Rockford, IL 61109 Via Certified Mail (including large plan documents); and USPS Standard Delivery (excluding large plan documents) Dear Pete The purpose of this letter is to confirm what we discussed Tuesday, August 16, 2016 in the lobby when you stopped by. 1. You asked for a copy of the e‐mail the City received from Kevin Bunge indicating that you had retained his services to update his site plan documents. A copy of this e‐mail was provided to you this morning and is also attached to this letter. This e‐mail was forwarded to me on August 4th, after you had dropped off some documents that included plan revisions and provided me with a written request dated August 2nd to proceed with your hearing “with the paperwork (I) have”. In response to my phone message to you asking whether I was to wait for these new plans or to proceed, you left me a voice mail message on August 5th stating that you did not tell anybody to make changes to your plans and that I was to proceed with what I have. 2. Because you only dropped off two documents on August 2nd (a Survey document prepared by Survey‐Tech consisting of 1 sheet and dated August 2, 2016, and a one sheet document labeled “A2”, showing the first floor cinema layout of the first floor, but marked Second Floor Plan which is not dated or identified as to who prepared the document), I asked you to confirm what constitutes your understanding of the “paperwork I have” as requested in your August 2 letter. I went through everything I have with you this morning, and you provided direction that I should include all of it. I am forwarding for your record the documents we reviewed this morning and what you have directed we consider as part of your submittal. a. A handwritten letter from you dated August 2, 2016 asking me to proceed with the paper work I have to the Board. b. Sheet A2 of 4, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by. You told me you made revisions to this document to show walls between the four theater and areas you marked as “storage”. You further indicated that two of these walls are existing and two of these wall are proposed, although the plans do not indicate such. When I asked you to describe how these walls would meet required exiting for these spaces, you indicated that they would meet requirements, even though there are no doors shown in the walls separating the cinema areas from the “storage” areas.  c. A survey document, entitled “GKC Theatres, Inc.” prepared by Survey‐Tech, dated 8/2/16, consisting of 1 sheet. You indicated this document represents your current proposed site plan, showing the proposed layout of the parking lot and parking spaces. d. A color elevation (east side), entitled “Blackhawk Apartments at Campus Cinema”, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by. e. A one sheet “narrative”, not dated or signed. f. A lighting and photometric plan entitled “Blackhawk Tower”, prepared by U.S. Architectural/Sun Valley Lighting, consisting of 1 sheet and dated 5/9/16. I advised you that because this plan had not been updated to be consistent with your revised site plan, the light poles as indicated on this plan would be in the middle of parking spaces and that relocating them to be consistent with your plan might change the photometric numbers. g. A document entitled “Proposed Renovation to Campus Cinema Blackhawk Apartments”, prepared by ADG Design and Services, Inc. consisting of Sheets T1, L1. A1, A2, A3, and A4, latest revision dated 6/21/16. Again, I advised you that the Site Plan on this Sheet T1 did not match your revised site plan, and that the site plan shown on proposed Landscaping Sheet L1 was not consistent and therefore did not show required landscaping on the west side of the parking lot. 3. I advised you that your request to proceed with these documents was not in your best interest because the revisions had not been reviewed by staff for code compliance, and that most of the earlier documents at a minimum were incorrect as they showed improvements that were no longer consistent with your latest site plan. You reiterated your desire to proceed with these incorrect plans. Please be advised that staff will complete a thorough review of the plan documents and will provide a report to the Plan Commission of aspects of the plan that do and don’t comply with City Codes, whether the plans address necessary standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and all inconsistencies and deficiencies between the various plan documents. Staff’s recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are based on the documents provided, so multiple code deficiencies and inconsistencies between your submitted plan documents will result in a negative recommendation by staff. Per your written request to proceed, and unless you advise me in writing no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, August 22, 2016 that you do not wish to proceed with these documents, your case will be noticed and scheduled for the September 14, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission. You are strongly encouraged to allow staff an opportunity to provide you with review comments on your latest site plan submittal and resubmit revised plan document that are at least consistent with your revised site plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, AICP, Principal Planner City of DeKalb  Exhibit 11 To: Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner COD Derek Hiland, Long Range Planner From: James P. Zarek, Deputy Fire Chief Date: September 8, 2016 Re: Campus Cinema Proposal, 1015 Blackhawk Based on the plans that were submitted and looked at on September 7, 2016 the fire department has the following concerns for the project: 1. Converting parking on the Blackhawk side of the building to angle parking vs. parallel parking. By doing this it reduce the travel lane width down to 12.5 feet. Per 503.2.1 of the International Fire Code (2006) an access road shall be at least 20 foot wide. 2. The parking lot configuration at the North end of the proposed lot only was giving 12.5 feet for the parking lanes and the ends of the parking lanes. This is not enough for a fire department engine to make the turn we would need a minimum of 20 feet. The code for this requirement states that turning radius requirements are up to the fire code official. We would need a minimum of 20 feet for the lanes. 3. Because of the concept a sprinkler system would be required to be installed in the building. This would need to be installed in accordance with Chapter 9 of The International Fire Code. This also would then require an alarm system component and access for a fire department connection. 4. It is my understanding that there was walls placed in each of the four theatres effectively cutting them in half. The front half was going or was being used for the shows and the back halves were being used for storage. This presents a problem with adequate exiting from the theatres as they do not have a second means of egress. In order to accomplish the secondary exits would need to be installed in accordance with the current code. The reference code for this is Section 1014 to 1019 of the International Fire Code (2006). 5. The storage area behind the new walls will need to be evaluated for the possibility of additional code requirements. This assessment is based on the plans as submitted, which was limited in information. If additional information is presented we will need to reevaluate the proposal. Feel free to contact me if you need any further information. DeKalb Fire Department 700 Pine Street DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815.748.8460 phone www.cityofdekalb.com/DFD.htm 815.748.8497 fax www.facebook.com/dekalbfire  t:itYOf ~ eKalb opportunity . innovation SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION -- ---- - -- - - - - - --~- -- - -- - - ---- TO: City Clerk, Mayor, and City Council of the City of DeKalb, Illinois FROM: Petitioner(s): {~ {)Co{;(/n7 J Telephone: "/tJ ?~o )Cf-21 Mailing Address: · ·s gf r /r t v Fax: ----------------------------- (2. " <!.l1 Co K.l / <-~ ( (I o? Cell: --------------------------- Email: --------------------------- Petitioner's Representative: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Telephone: ------------------------ Mailing Address: ------------------------ - - Fax: ----------------------------- Cell: - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - Email: --------------------------- 1. The petitioner hereby petitions the City of DeKalb to approve a Special Use Permit for the following property: A. Legal Description and Parcel# (s): (If necessary, attach the full legal description on a separate sheet of paper) - - - - - - - - - - - / 01 r flt.-AC:« /.f.#~q Pt:= @L tf B. Street Address or Common Location: _ _.;./_O_;/ ,__f_'....:.;/t _ 4t -=VIt =-<"-'~==4=L.o =...;;./1..____ _ __ C. Size (square feet or acres): ----------------------------------------- D. Existing Zoning District: ____~ ___ c_____________________________________ E. Proposed Use and Description: On a separate piece of paper, describe the proposed use's characteristics such as operating hours , number of employees, capacity of facility, etc. Also, indicate whether or not the proposed use would : a) be in conformance with City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed use may; b) impact adjacent existing and future land uses; c) impact adjacent property values; d) impact the general public's health, safety, and welfare; and e) in conformance with all elements of the "UDO," Unified Development Ordinance . L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 1 of 1 2. The petitioner hereby submits the following information: ( ) Vicinity map of the area proposed for the special use ( ) List of current owner, and their mailing addresses, of all property within 250 feet (Exclusive of right-of-way) of the property proposed to be rezoned ( ) Petition fee ($500.00) ( ) 12 photo copies and an electronic copy on a disk of a site plan which must show the following items: __ Property dimensions _ _ Location and use of proposed structure _ _ Number and location of parking spaces and loading area _ _ Location and type of landscaping (including existing trees 6" in diameter or greater and existing tree masses __ Location, type, and height of fencing or walls __ Location and width of driveways and curb cuts ; internal traffic patterns _ _ Floor area (square footage) _ _ Location of exterior lighting _ _ Location, type, and height of signage __ Direction of storm water flow, location of detention area (Note to Petitioner: A site plan for a special use permit is intended to be a schematic plan only. All plans must eventually conform to other City standards prior to the issuance of any building permits or other permits.) 3. The petitioner hereby states that a pre-application conference was *( ) was not ( ) held with City staff prior to the submittal of this petition. *Date of pre-application conference: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Those in attendance: - - - - - - -- -- - ------------------------------- (Note to petitioner: A pre-application conference with staff is highly encouraged in order to avoid delays and to help in the timely processing of this petition .) 4. The petitioner hereby agrees that this petition will be placed on the Plan Commission's agenda only if it is completed in full and submitted in advance of established deadlines . 5. The petitioner has read and completed all of the above information and affirms that it is true and correct. L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 2 of2 -- . 6. Petitioner/property owner(s) hereby give the City of DeKalb permission to post a public notice sign(s) on the subject property. Petitioner Date Petitioner Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ 5 day of ~ , ;;) Of(:,_ __ PA~f¢ll\'l HILAND "OFF.ICIAL SEAL" ~dJcjd4niJ My Commission Expires June 20, 2019 Notary Public I hereby affirm that I am the legal owner (or authorized agent or representative of the owner- proof attached) of the subject property and authorize the petitioner to pursue this Special Use Permit petition as described above (petitioner must sign if he/she is the owner). Owner's Signature Date {d-&--- Owner's Signature Date C. Subscribed and sworn to before me - or:;;::r::::::i PATRlGb\ft HILAND •oFFICIAL SEAL" My Commission Elcplres June 20, 2019 Notary Public --------------------------------------------------------------------STAFF USE 0 NLY ----------------------------------------------------------- Planning & Development Division City Clerk Signature Is petition completed in full? _ _ yes __ no Date Received: - - - - - - - - - - - - Received by: - - - - - - - - - - - - - starnp Public Hearing Date: - - - - - - - - - - L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 3 of 3 ITEM F3  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 9, 2016 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: CASE #PZC-16-2016 – Puri Dekalb Amendment to Planned Development and Annexation Agreement Request the Continue to September 28, 2016 This petition requests and amendment to the previously approved planned development zoning and annexation agreement to remove conditions restricting non-retail uses in the project in order to accommodate ATI Physical Therapy in about 2,500 square feet of the soon- to-be finished north building. The property owners intend to ask for this consideration in exchange for bringing Harbour Freight to their DeKalb Shopping Center location at 1712 Sycamore Road. The owners committed to providing a signed lease by Harbor Freight as part of the request. This lease has not yet been secured as Harbour Freight is contemplating their own Planned Development application to address certain parking and signage needs. The owner/applicant is therefore contemplating processing these two requests concurrently with each other, and staff recommends this case be continued. The following sample motion is provided: I move that Case #PZC-16-2016 be continued to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s PZC061-16 1015 Puri Dekalb SUP - SR CASE #PZC-16-2016