Planning & Zoning Commission

AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 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. OCTOBER 12, MEETING E. OLD BUSINESS F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing on requests by David Olsen representing First Lutheran Church, 324 North Third Street, for approval of a special use permit for an existing church and a variation request to reduce a front yard setback from twenty-five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) along Third Street for a distance of approximately 32’ to accommodate an the addition of an attached canopy over the Third Street building entrance. . 2. Public Hearing on requests by Pearl Street Commercial represented by Steven Schwartz for s proposed Lincoln-Peace Planned Development resubdivision which requires a zoning map amendment to PD-C Planned Development Commercial zoning and approval of preliminary and final plats/plans for the subject property located at 2111-2131 E. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb. G. CONSIDERATIONS H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J. ADJOURNMENT PZC083-16 ITEM D1  DRAFTED MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 6:00 PM The Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on September 28, 2016 at City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street in the Council Chambers. Chair Christina Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:03pm. A. ROLL CALL Derek Hiland called the roll. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present at roll call: Chair Christina Atherton, David Castro, Matthew Crull, Deborah Nier, and Jerry Wright. Members absent at roll call: Adam Katz and Roger Ruehling. Also present from the City of DeKalb were: Acting Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, Long Range Planner Derek Hiland, Attorney Dean Frieders, and Administrative Assistant Natalie Nelson. B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the agenda for October 12, 2016. M. Crull motioned to approve the agenda, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. C. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the minutes for September 28, 2016. J. Wright motioned to approve the minutes, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. E. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continued 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. Principal Planner Jo Ellen Charlton introduced Dean Frieders to speak prior to her presentation of the staff report. Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 2 of 18 Attorney Frieders provided a history of this item and the applicable zoning factors. April 2013 – Pursuant to the Illinois Municipal Code requirements, the City published in a newspaper a notice of a zoning public hearing for a proposed text amendment to the City’s Unified Development Ordinance to change allowing residential units over first-floor commercial units from a permitted use to a special use in certain zoning districts. The public zoning hearing took place, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the text amendment, and the City Council approved the text amendment in June 2013. February 2015 – Pete Occhipinti filed a lawsuit against the City, alleging violation of his due process rights by changing the UDO without providing to him an individual personal notice of the zoning public hearing. The City filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that the UDO change affected over 600 properties, not just Mr. Occhipinti’s property, that the City followed the Illinois Municipal Code provision which allowed for publication notice instead of individual notice for a zoning public hearing, and that the plans did not conform with other elements of the UDO. Mr. Occhipinti had not previously applied to the City for any building permit or zoning approval. He also had not asked for permission from the City to do anything on the property, nor had he been formally denied anything by the City. The Circuit Court dismissed case. While the case was pending, Mr. Occhipinti met with Community Development staff to discuss his proposal to install residential units on two additional floors above the current building. He was advised to submit a request for a Special Use Permit for City consideration if he sought to proceed with his proposed plan. June 29, 2016 – Mr. Occhipinti submitted an application for Special Use Permit with the related fees and drawn plans. The initial application was not complete. July 6, 2016 – The City Principal Planner met with Mr. Occhipinti to review his plans. He was informed the theater seats did not correlate with the parking lot spaces—that the seat counts required more parking spaces than were available on site, as configured. The City reported that Mr. Occhipinti stated that the plans were drawn incorrectly, but he would not revise plans and planned to move forward with his request as-is. On the same day, the City sent a letter to Mr. Occhipinti, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. The letter listed numerous deficiencies in the proposal, including zoning confirmation of surrounding properties, landscaping, fencing, dumpster enclosure, parking counts and configuration, fencing, lighting, and setbacks. In response, Mr. Occhipinti provided a revised building plan with walls to divide the four theater spaces approximately in half and create unusable inaccessible spaces that were not served by any doorways or entry points. According to the Petitioner, these walls reduced the number of seats from 1,038 to 438, which reduced the number of required number of parking spaces to exactly match the number of parking spaces provided by the plans. At that point, other aspects of the plans remained inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the UDO. July 11, 2016 – The City Principal Planner and Mr. Occhipinti met again. Mr. Occhipinti indicated he was considering revising his plans. He said he would get back the City about whether he will revise the plans to conform with zoning requirements and accurately reflect the conditions of the site.  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 3 of 18 July 15, 2016 – The City Principal Planner sent letter to Mr. Occhipinti, included in the meeting packet, which notified him that the City would wait to hear from him whether he planned to proceed with his petition as-filed or if he would provide supplemental materials. The City’s letter also recommended that the petitioner coordinate an inspection of the interior to determine if adding two stories was possible and if other issues may be present since the building has been vacant for some time. July 26, 2016 – An architect contacted the City indicating they were working on behalf of the petitioner. The architect requested copies of City review letters to better understand the concerns. August 2, 2016 – The petitioner submitted a revised survey with a revised parking layout and a revised floor plan, which divides each theater into half; one-half of each is storage; one-half of each is a theater with 138 each. City staff indicated that these revisions would be reviewed and comments would be provided, so that the owner could update his plans, as per usual in cases like this, prior to presentation to the Commission. The petitioner indicated he would not revise his plans, and he requested in writing to move forward with his request as-is. His note is part of the meeting packet materials. August 4, 2016 – An architect contacted City again indicating they represented the property owner and were working on plan revisions. August 5, 2016 – The property owner informed the City that the architect was not working with him, no new plans would be submitted, and he wanted to move forward with the current plans. August 16, 2016 – The City met with the property owner. City staff confirmed that the plans brought forth at the current meeting are the plans the property owner wants the Commission to consider. He drew his own changes on the drawings, which had originally been professionally drawn. He indicated that walls had already been constructed to divide the theaters into half and another wall was planned. The City Building Division has received no building permits for this construction work. The property owner confirmed that there were no doors to the empty spaces created by the walls. The property owner was advised that the lighting plan would result in light poles placed in the middle of parking spaces (i.e. conflicting with parked cars). Despite the numerous inaccuracies with the plans, the property owner stated he still wanted to move forward with his proposal. August 18, 2016 – The Principal Planner sent to the property owner a letter, which is in the meeting packet, confirming that the City will proceed forward as per his request, outlining the City’s concerns, conflicts, and violations within the plans. August 25, 2016 to August 27, 2016 – The City published a Public Notice and mailed to nearby property owners notice letters to establish the required timeline for conduct of a Public Hearing before the Plan Commission. The hearing was scheduled for a previous meeting, but it was continued to today at the petitioner’s request. Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 4 of 18 Since the petitioner’s plans deviate significantly from the City’s Unified Development Ordinance in numerous ways, City staff recommended to the Commission denial of this petition. Attorney Frieders listed the City’s numerous concerns with the building and site plans. The plans are inaccurate, incomplete, conflicting, and depart significantly the UDO standards. Attorney Frieders provided a detailed argument of how the applicant’s proposal does not meet several of the LaSalle Factors, which should be considered collectively when to evaluate if a proposed special use is appropriate in a particular zoning district, and what if any conditions can be placed on the development. He stated that the Commission should consider a development’s effect upon the surrounding properties and whether the development will be beneficial to the community. The potential hardship of the property owner whose property is currently vacant should also be part of the Commission’s considerations. He pointed out the presence of several nearby vacant multi-unit residential properties and insufficient off-street parking, which are primary concerns in the area surrounding the property in question. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to demonstrate that the proposal meets the LaSalle Factors and satisfies the UDO requirements and the zoning standards. Attorney Frieders explained that proposed developments should also act to promote the public health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. He asserted that the City’s position is that the property is better suited to a commercial use, rather than additional residential use, as the area is flagged in City planning documents as in need of commercial development. Attorney Frieders indicated that the current property owner closed the theater several years ago, and it has remained closed since that point in time. He cited several passages in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provided a detailed argument that showed how this proposal is not in harmony with multiple aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Jo Ellen Charlton asked for a motion from the Commission to enter the staff report into the record. M. Crull motioned to enter the staff report into the record, D. Nier seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. J. Charlton provided a detailed account of how the proposed project does not comply with the standards in the Unified Development Ordinance. She explained page two of the staff report provides a list of documents provided by the applicant to the City. She pointed out that the revised site plan conflicts with previously provided landscaping and lighting plans. City staff confirmed with the applicant that he wished to submit this request as-is without further Staff review and revisions despite the following remaining concerns: 1. Use and Parking – The UDO provides parking space standards: one (1) parking space is required for every four (4) seats in a movie theater. Based upon the number of theater seats in the applicant’s initial submitted plans, 138 parking spaces would be required; based upon the number of bedrooms in the applicant’s plans for the residential units, an additional 45 parking spaces would be required, resulting in 183 total required parking spaces. The number of parking spaces in the applicant’s submitted plans is 184; however, the configuration of the spaces does not meet other parking lot requirements. The applicant changed the number of theater seats in the plan to comply with the  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 5 of 18 maximum number of parking spaces that can fit on the property. Further, it appears as though the plans do not accurately reflect the seating capacity of the building, either as originally constructed or as presently configured. 2. Lack of Building Code Compliance – The applicant drew lines on the design professional’s drawings he submitted to reduce the size of the theaters by half without addressing access and separation requirements for installing the planned additional walls. 3. Additional drive aisle and turning radii required – Representatives from the City Fire Department reviewed the proposed plan and recommended additional drive aisle space to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver around all sides of the building. The City has requested an increase in the provided width to 20 feet to meet the Fire Department’s recommended minimum width and permit emergency vehicle access. 4. Compact Cars – The applicant’s plan proposes 25% of all parking spaces to be sized for compact cars, but the UDO standards allow only the portion of spaces designated for multi-unit resident use may be sized for compact cars. If the parking plan is adjusted to comply with the UDO standard, the number of parking spaces will not be sufficient. 5. Interior parking lot landscaping – According to the UDO, 3,680 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping are required, but the proposed landscaping plan has only nine landscaping islands, which does not equal the required interior parking lot landscaping coverage. If a typical landscaping island is about 162 square feet, the lot requires 23 such islands or equivalent. The UDO requires one landscaping island for every 20 parking spaces, but the proposed landscaping plan does meet this standard. 6. Perimeter and landscape screening – The landscape plan was not revise when the site plan was revised, so some required landscaping is missing. 7. Maximum gross square footage – The UDO does not allow a multi-use building to be larger than 25,000 square feet in gross floor area. The proposed building is 49,789 square feet. No variation to this requirement was requested by the applicant. 8. Nonconforming expansion – The existing building’s setbacks are already non- conforming. The proposed plans would increase the non-conforming elements and increase the non-conformity of the bulk standards of the property. No variation to this requirement was requested by the applicant. 9. Structural capacity to accommodate a two-story addition – There has been no indication that the additions can be accommodated structurally or could be actually constructed. This has been vacant for more than two years, during which time water and mold may have caused structural damage. The City asked the applicant to provide building drawings showing how the current building could support a two-story addition, but no response was provided. The Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 6 of 18 City asked for but was denied access to the building to assess its structural integrity. 10. Storage use – The applicant’s designating half of each theater space as storage decreased the parking space requirement. The City would have liked to have known what use those spaces may have been proposed previously. 11. Dumpster must be enclosed – The UDO requires an enclosure around a dumpster, but the submitted plans do not indicate one in the dumpster location. No variation to this requirement was requested by the applicant. 12. Incompatible exterior elevation and construction materials – City staff typically asks developers to try to match proposed materials and architectural elements with the original materials and architectural elements so that the new construction complements the existing building and the surrounding buildings. The plans submitted by the applicant do not accomplish this task. 13. Inconsistency between submitted plans and plans not prepared by professionals as required by the UDO – The applicant originally submitted drawings prepared a design professional, but the applicant hand drew his own changes on the drawings without knowledge or consent of the design professional. 14. Review process and direction from the applicant – City staff asserts that they have tried to work with the applicant to advise him how to address the City’s concerns. The staff report provides a record of the meetings with the applicant and letters to the applicant. J. Charlton referred to the Standard of Special Uses in the staff report and asked that the Commission consider each one of these standards and the City staff comments on each as they apply to the proposed development. She reported that only one citizen response was supportive of the proposal with conditions: that commercial businesses occupied the first floor and that subsidized housing recipients not occupy the apartments in the upper floors. She maintained that City staff attempted to help the applicant present an adequate proposal for Commission consideration. The applicant chose not to take City staff’s advice and has not paid the required application fees. She stated that City staff believes that the property could support additional residential uses if the development was properly designed and planned. J. Charlton stated that City staff asks the Commission to adopt findings provided in the staff report and recommend to City Council denial of the Special Use request. At 6:48, Chair Atherton opened the meeting to public comments. J. Charlton stated that the applicant Pete Occhipinti, was present in the audience to provide testimony. Mr. Occhipinti distributed handouts to the Commission members and City staff, which are a part of the public record. Pete Occhipinti stated he owns 1015 Blackhawk Road, the former Campus Cinema. He has been a builder for 52 years, around Chicago and DuPage County. This is the first time he has built in this area.  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 7 of 18 He argued that the drawings he presented conform to Code, including setbacks for up to six residential units and commercial buildings, including buildings with more than six residential units. He claimed that the City does not want more residential near Greek Row. He stated that the building currently conforms to the Light Commercial (LC) zoning district standards for front setback, as measured from the foundation of the building to the lot line, and no rear setback is required. He stated that the building is currently non-conforming, and his proposed two-story addition for residential units would not affect the ground level. He asserted that when he purchased the property, the LC zoning Permitted Uses included residential. However, four or five years ago, the Permitted Uses were changed, and residential uses became Special Uses. He stated he could change his plans for the use of first-floor commercial space at any time, to be theaters or storage or whatever was allowed. He stated that the seats have been removed, and walls have been constructed to allow for 138 seats in two theaters. He stated that the parking spaces in his proposed plan can accommodate that. He said there are no residential zoned properties near him, that they are all commercial. He said his parking plan was drawn to comply with City code, and suggested that the code should be updated if the Fire Department requires changes to parking lots. Mr. Occhipinti claimed his lighting plan was approved by D. Hiland, with whom he has been working with about eight months, but when J. Charlton became involved she did not approve them. He restated that he only seeks approval to build apartments above the empty commercial space to offset the lost revenue from the unoccupied first floor space. Attorney Frieders stated for the record the documents Mr. Occhipinti distributed to the Commission and City staff. Mr. Occhipinti provided copies of his typewritten comments, copies of Directions for Filing Real Estate Tax Forms with the State Department of Revenue, copies of excerpts from City’s Unified Development Ordinance, and one copy of a proposed elevation plan. J. Charlton responded to Mr. Occhipinti’s claims:  While the northernmost property adjacent to the west side of property in question is zoned LC, the property to the south is zoned Planned Unit Development Residential. The presence of adjacent residential-zoned property governs the required setbacks on the property in question.  The City’s UDO defines a setback as measured from a building’s foundation except when an overhead projection, like this building’s portico, is present. The projection becomes the end point, which causes the setback from the property line to be less than the required 40-feet, and thus, the building is non- conforming.  The LC zoning of the property does not permit a stand-alone storage facility as a principal use, only as an accessory use. D. Hiland displayed for the Commissioners on his table the County GIS map with the City zoning layer activated and the location of the applicant’s building. For the record, Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 8 of 18 Attorney Frieders noted that properties directly west of the property in question have two zoning districts designations: the northern most is zoned LC, while the southern properties are zoned Planned Development Residential (PD-R). A portion of the theater building is adjacent to a residential property, which governs the required setbacks. The theater building does not comply with residential setback requirements. Chair Atherton also confirmed that survey included in the meeting packet does show the LC and PD-R zoning designations of the adjacent properties. P. Occhipinti maintained that apartments were a permitted use for his property in the past, and he argued that his proposal could be approved by the Commission subject to conditions. At 7:05 Chair Atherton opened the floor to Commissioner comments and questions. M. Crull commended City staff and the applicant for providing a thorough discussion of the proposal. He voiced concern that the structural integrity of the building has not been assessed to determine if it can even accommodate the proposed two additional stories. D. Castro asked if the City has legal authority to enter the building to inspect its structural integrity and report upon it. Attorney Frieders explained for the record that the property owner is within his rights to deny access to his property. The City would need a search warrant to gain access, which the City has not sought. Attorney Frieders advised the Commission not to hold the denial of access to the building against the property owner when considering the proposal. D. Castro stated he believed this proposal was not a viable project, despite his desire to see development of this vacant property. J. Wright asked for further information the proposed prohibition on Section 8 housing in the apartments as recommended by the written community comment received. J. Charlton explained that a citizen response, received after the notice of public hearing was mailed to nearby property owners, was included verbatim in the staff report. She stated that the City has no position on whether this condition has any legal standing. Attorney Frieders clarified that it is not a component of any of the City’s zoning standards, City cannot prohibit affordable housing or affect the pricing of housing, and City staff did not consider this condition in its recommendation to deny the proposal. J. Wright asked Mr. Occhipinti why he submitted plans that are not complete official plans. Mr. Occhipinti responded the plans he submitted were just prosed prints. He asked the Commission to approve his proposed plan to place two residential stories on his building, subject to approval by engineering, lighting, landscaping, etc. He said he would provide official working plans at the time the building permit is submitted. D. Nier expressed concern that so many outstanding issues and areas of noncompliance exist in the proposal. All petitioners are held to the same conditions in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the development ordinances. She stated she could not approve any request. J. Wright supported development of the vacant property. He asked Mr. Occhipinti if he felt the City has been unfair to him. He recommended that Mr. Occhipinti’s architect cooperates with the City’s conditions. Mr. Occhipinti stated that he purchased the  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 9 of 18 property with the purpose to build apartments, which he asserts had been allowed in LC zoning at the time of his purchase. Attorney Frieders stated that City supports putting property to beneficial use. He stated for the record that the Commission note in the staff report the City staff’s extraordinary efforts to work with the applicant to address the outstanding issues. He explained that customarily, proposed developments have be approved, with very specific conditions for very minor deficiencies, not in any case with so many significant issues. He asserted that there is no indication that the proposed project could ever conform to the UDO regulations. Further, he reported that the City has never approved a proposal with a long list of conditions with the hope that the developer would remedy the problems during construction. Commissioner J. Wright and Mr. Occhipinti discussed how the proposed plan could meet all City code requirements and what kinds of commercial uses would be placed in the first floor spaces, besides the 138-seat theaters. Mr. Occhipinti claimed that he could have built the proposed two floors of residential uses above the theater years ago without permission, before the permitted uses for LC zoning was changed. For the record, Chair Atherton stated that the changes to the permitted uses in LC zone that came forth in 2013 were not prompted by any current or future development. She explained that the Commission is required to review the UDO on a regular basis and make recommendations and changes as deemed fit. The Commission was not aware of Mr. Occhipinti’s plan to build apartments on the property at that time. Chair Atherton expressed her support and the Commission’s support for commercial development in the area because where the residential density can support it, but she believed that the proposal has many unresolved issues. At 7:30, Chair Atherton closed public hearing. Chair Atherton asked the Commission to review the Standards of Special Uses and City staff comments to each provided in the staff report, pages 10-11, from which Chair Atherton read aloud: 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. Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 10 of 18 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 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  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 11 of 18 “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. Chair Atherton asked the members of the Commission for comments or discussion on the Standards for Special Uses or the City staff responses provided. There being none, Chair Atherton requested a motion. D. Nier motioned that based on the submitted petition, staff report, and testimony presented for Case #PZC-11-2016, she moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings provided in Section V, Standards of Special Uses, and recommend to the City Council denial of the requested special use. M. Crull seconded the motion. Chair Atherton asked the Commission for further comments or discussion. There being none, she requested to amend the motion to include Attorney Frieders’ comments (inclusive of the LaSalle factors) and testimony provided. Both D. Nier and M. Crull voiced approval for amending accordingly their motion and second, respectively. A roll call vote was taken. Yes votes were cast by D. Castro, J. Wright, D. Nier, M. Crull, and Chair Atherton. No votes were cast by no one. The motion passed 5-0. 2. Continued Public Hearing on a request 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. At 7:40pm, as Chair Atherton read aloud agenda item 2 above, Commissioner D. Nier stepped down from the dais. J. Charlton provided City staff comments and a summary of events surrounding the property in question and the two-building commercial development. The approval of the building and the annexation agreement included limiting non-retail businesses to one-third, which was a modification to the zoning category’s regulations. Aspen Dental occupies approximately 31% of the commercial square-footage in the entire southern building. Now, a prospective tenant ATI Physical Therapy, another non-retail business, expressed interest in occupying a portion of the currently vacant northern building. This would increase the non-retail square-footage to approximately 53%. Initially, the developer, Corral Dyn, sought to encourage the City to approve the proposed amendment to the agreement by working with Harbor Freight, a potential retail tenant, to locate to another building farther north on Sycamore Road. At this time, the Harbor Freight lease has not been signed, pending requested modifications to parking and signage, which would require approval by the Commission. The developer Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 12 of 18 decided to request the amendment to the agreement without the leverage of another retail tenant elsewhere in the City. J. Charlton reminded the Commission that this recently annexed property was initially reserved for retail uses only. The City has already agreed to allow one-third of the square-footage to be occupied by non-retail businesses. In addition, the City cannot tie one property’s use to another property’s use. City staff does recommending not approving this requested amendment to the agreement. Because this is a Planned Development, zoning category standards were put in place. This request is essentially a text amendment to the zoning category standards. At 7:46pm, Chair Atherton opened the public hearing. Marvin Keys, council for the applicant, Coral Dyn LLC of 6801 Spring Hill Road in Rockford, Illinois. He stated that ATI has signed a lease for the portion of the northern building they wish to occupy, contingent upon the City’s approval. If the City does not approve this request, ATI has no other building in mind in DeKalb. He asserted that ATI is a reputable national chain that provides a beneficial service for the community and the shopping center. He explained that the deal with Harbor Freight has been delayed and may or may not come to be. The petitioner plans to improve the shopping center Harbor Freight has been considering, whether or not the deal comes through. Mr. Keys stated that the firm has been in DeKalb for two decades, has 30 years’ experience, and intends to continue the relationship. He asserted that City staff has come to the wrong conclusion, and he requested that the Commission approve the request. D. Castro asked City staff to explain the one-third retail requirement. Attorney Frieders responded with a history of the property’s annexation, development, and zoning for retail uses. The then-current owners sold the property to First Midwest Group-Puri DeKalb. Initially the annexation agreement and planned development agreements designated the entire property for retail use only. When Aspen Dental expressed interest in the property, the developer worked with the City to revise the agreements to allow a small amount of non-retail uses. Attorney Frieders explained that the request to increase the allowable non-retail square-footage must be approved through a zoning change and revision of the annexation agreement. D. Castro and Attorney Frieders discussed the choices available: allowing a non-retail tenant to occupy the vacant property or leaving the property vacant until a more appropriate tenant expresses interest in it. Attorney Frieders stated that there is no indication that the property will remain vacant if ATI is not allowed to occupy it. Mr. Keys reported that the property has been aggressively marketed, and ATI is the only party to express interest in it. J. Wright confirmed with Mr. Keys that a good faith effort was made to attract a retail business, which would pay a higher rent to the property owner. Mr. Keys stated that ATI was shown other properties owned by the petitioner that could have been easier to accommodate the non-retail use, but ATI chose this property. M. Crull expressed understanding of the petitioner’s proposal and City staff’s negative recommendation.  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 13 of 18 Chair Atherton confirmed with Attorney Frieders that it was the petitioner, not the City’s, who proposed allowing one-third of the development’s building square-footage to be non-retail because the dental office desired stand-along building. Chair Atherton asked how the City’s receipt of taxes would be affected by different types of tenants. Attorney Frieders replied that a small amount of property tax would collected regardless of type of tenant, but a greater sales taxes would be generated by a retail establishment or a restaurant/bar compared to a medical establishment. J. Wright asked if the presence of Aspen Dental has negatively affected the nearby retail stores. Mr. Keys replied that national chains of dental offices, physical therapy facilities, and eye glasses stores are very common in retail centers. They are marketed as retail-oriented use or office. He stated he was not aware of any negative effect. At 8:08pm, Chair Atherton closed public hearing Chair Atherton asked the Commission to review the Standards of Rezoning and City staff comments to each provided in the staff report, pages 4-5, from which Chair Atherton read aloud: IV. STANDARDS OF REZONING 1. The proposed rezoning conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, or conditions have changed to warrant the need for different types of land uses in that area. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area should become commercial uses for this development. Staff believes that the proposed development meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the PZC should be prepared to discuss the proposed reduction of retail uses on the subject property. The Commission has discussed the proposed reduction of retail uses on the subject property. The Commission agreed with the findings in Standard 1. 2. The proposed rezoning conforms to the intent and purpose of the Unified Development Ordinance. The intent and purpose of the Planned Development zoning district states: The purpose of the Planned Development Districts is to provide a means of achieving greater flexibility in development of land in a manner not always possible in conventional zoning districts; to encourage a more imaginative and innovative design of projects; to promote a more desirable community environment; and to retain maximum control over both the design and future operation of the development. The rezoning of the subject property provides the opportunity to more directly shape the development, use and appearance of this property in accordance with the City’s design criteria and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The physical boundaries of the property and the setbacks imposed adjacent to Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 14 of 18 residential properties make this site a challenging site to redevelop. The Planned Development allows the developer and the city the flexibility to agree to a development plan that seeks two exception from the Unified Development Ordinance regarding setbacks upon landscaping buffers and minimum size requirement for a Planned Development. The Commission discussed and agreed with the findings in Standard 2. 3. The proposed rezoning will not have a significantly detrimental effect on the long-range development of adjacent properties or adjacent land uses. The proposed rezoning should not have a detrimental effect on the adjacent properties or land uses as it entitles the subject property to a commercial use that is complementary with existing, adjacent and proposed land uses along Sycamore Road while providing a buffer between it and the neighboring residential property to the northwest. The PD-C zoning provides the mechanism to increase certain requirements that will have a positive effect on the surrounding area while providing relief to the applicant that will allow the redevelopment of the subject property. D. Hiland stated that these findings of fact were copied in error from the original development proposal. He directed the Commission to disregard the staff comments that follow Standard 4. He asked the Commission to assessment Standard 3. The Commission discussed and agreed that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect to the surrounding area nor to adjacent properties. 4. The proposed rezoning constitutes an expansion of an existing zoning district that no longer meets the demand for the intended land uses. The subject property is currently zoned “PD-C” Planned Development Commercial District. Amending the zoning of the property to allow for a non-retail user will still keep the well-designed development intact and not expand the zoning district to which it is a part. The Commission expressed understanding of Standard 4. They discussed and agreed that the proposed rezoning constitutes an expansion of an existing zoning district that no longer meets the demand for the intended land uses increase 31% to 53%, greater than the originally approved 33% in the development agreement. 5. Adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided. Adequate utilities are provided. The Commission discussed and agreed with the findings in Standard 5. Chair Atherton asked if there were further comments from the City or Commission. Hearing and seeing none, Chair Atherton requested a motion.  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 15 of 18 D. Castro motioned to amend the annexation authorized by the City Council pursuant to PZC Case 2016-077 to allow greater than 1/3 of the leasable space to be used for authorized non-retail uses. Attorney Frieders directed the Commission to refer to the Staff recommendation if they planned to expand upon it and add a 53% limit to non-retail space, if that is what they desire. He clarified the Commission’s recommendation should not be to amend the annexation agreement. Rather they should address zoning of the property to allow up to 53% of the leasable space to be used for authorized non-retail uses. D. Castro withdrew his motion to restate the recommendation. M. Crull asked if allowing an increase non-retail use from 33% to 53% is a slippery- slope that may allow for more medical uses in a retail area. J. Charlton replied that any petitioner may request an increase in non-retail uses on the property. This is the second time that this bar has been moved. Although there are other locations in DeKalb that do not have the retail restrictions, the petitioner’s tenant wants this one. Chair Atherton confirmed with Attorney Frieders that the restriction on non-retail use would be the cap, not a requirement to be fulfilled. D. Castro motioned to recommend rezoning of the property to allow up to 53% non- retail use on the property. J. Wright seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Yes votes were cast by M. Crull, J. Wright, and D. Castro. No vote was cast by C. Atherton. D. Nier was in the audience and did not vote. The motion carried 3-1. D. Nier returned to the dais after the vote. 3. Continuation of the public hearing on a request 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. J. Charlton provided City staff comments and read from the staff report the items to be considered at this continuance: 1. Field verification or confirmation that the full movement of a vehicle could be made without encroachment. 2. Further discussion of alternatives to provide the separation if the movement can be accommodated. 3. Reconsideration of the condition limiting the storage of inoperable vehicles on the site from a maximum of 24 hours to a maximum of 96 hours to accommodate situations beyond the businesses’ control. After the last meeting, City staff met Mr. Del Muro on the property in question and recorded videos of Mr. Del Muro’s car maneuvering around the corner of the building with the cones placed on the property line from both directions. The videos were played for the Commission and the audience to view on the large monitor screen. It was determined vehicle movement in both directions around the building could be accomplished without encroachment. J. Charlton reported that Mr. Del Muro has obtained cost estimates for bollards and that they almost as expensive as installing a roll curb. City staff determined that the first priority Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 16 of 18 is improvement on the west side of the site along Annie Glidden Road, which includes installing curbs and removing the pavement between the property line and the sidewalk and replacing it with landscaping. The second priority is to perform the same work along the south side of the site Lincoln Highway. City staff felt that the installation of wheel stops along the parking area does provide adequate separation until the second phase can be completed. City staff recommended that Mr. Del Muro be granted up to two years to complete the two-phase improvement. J. Charlton cited the Standards for Special Use and City staff’s findings which are repeated from the last meeting and appear on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. She stated that City staff proposes to the Commission recommendation with conditions on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report, which have been modified since the last meeting. At 8:33pm, Chair Atherton invited members of the audience to speak. The petitioner Adam Del Muro of 701 N. 3rd St. in Elburn, future owner of the business located at 1031 W. Lincoln Highway in DeKalb, approached the podium. He expressed appreciation for City staff’s recommendation to allow for 96 hours for storage of inoperable vehicles. He reported he had received price quotes for curb installation: one side of the property, about 52 linear feet, would cost about $4,000; if both sides of the property were done at the same time, would cost about $6,000. If the improvements on each side were performed at different times, it would cost about $8,000. Due to financial reasons, Mr. Del Muro requested for more time, so he could fund the improvements on both sides at the same time, saving $2,000, with completion still within two years’ time. There were no further comments from the audience. At 8:36pm, Chair Atherton asked the Commission for comments. M. Crull recommended including language for allowing for repair of vehicles outside the structure if moving it would cause damage to the vehicle. J. Charlton stated that City staff recommends the first phase of the improvement occur within 30 days of occupancy, as waiting two years to address safety is too long. Temporary alternative solutions were considered and discarded, including installing City planters, bollards, and additional parking stoppers, like those that will be installed at the tops of the parking spaces. Attorney Frieders recommended consulting the City Engineer prior to use of non-traditional measures, as they may cause new forms of liability issues for the City. The timeline for installing improvements was discussed, as was the new owner’s ability to gather the funds for the improvements. Thirty days may be too short while two years may be too long. Since the City is aware a hazardous condition exists, the City cannot avoid liability if an accident occurs. Mr. Del Muro approached the podium and stated he agreed with requiring curbs and landscaping to be installed. However, he expressed concern about the immediate expense for his new business. J. Charlton suggested to the Commission that they may consider prohibiting the movement of the business’ vehicles around the building until the curb is installed, which would reduce the City’s potential liability. Mr. Del Muro stated that roughly 60% of the business’ vehicles are driven around the corner, so prohibiting the movement would slow  Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 17 of 18 down business. Limiting employees to moving vehicles around the corner in one direction was suggested. Jim Anderson of 1147 Glidden Avenue in DeKalb, current owner of Illini Tire, approached the podium. He reiterated that the State of Illinois’ expansion of the road claimed important parts of his property. He explained that 90% of the small and intermediate-size cars are taken around the corner by employees. However, there are customers who do pull in off Annie Glidden Road and pull around the corner to the east side of the building. At 8:52, Chair Atherton announced that a meeting lasting past 9:00pm required a motion. M. Crull motioned to extend the current meeting time to 9:30pm if needed, the motion was seconded by D. Castro, and all approved by voice vote. Commission discussion continued on this item. They considered amending the first condition in the City staff recommendation to include a statement that barriers will be placed to prevent vehicle movement around the corner until both curbs are installed. They also considered decreasing the period allowed for the improvement completion to limit the time during which the City would be liable for accidents. Restricting vehicle movement around the corner of the building could encourage the new business owner to complete the required improvements as soon as financially possible. The restriction would begin as soon as the new business owner takes possession and conclude when the improvements are made, which must be completed within one years’ time. D. Castro stated that based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, he moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings of fact outlined in the October 7, 2016 staff memo for PZC 10-2016 and recommend to the City Council approval of a special use for a “vehicle service facility” at 1031 W. Lincoln Highway, subject to the following conditions, which amends the first condition: 1. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted and approved that show the location of new curbing and landscaping as described in the staff report prepared for the October 7, 2016 meeting. The curbing and landscaping along Annie Glidden Road and the curbing along Lincoln Highway shall be installed within 12 months of occupancy. Until such time that the installation is complete, movement of cars across the southern part of the property shall be restricted. 2. Wheel stops shall be added to those parking spaces that currently allow for overhang on the public sidewalk. 3. The parking lot shall be re-striped and signed in compliance with the Illinois Accessibility Code pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the City. 4. Inoperable vehicles shall not be parked on the site for more than 96 hours. 5. All repair work must occur within the building. 6. There shall be no outside storage of any materials. Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 2016 Page 18 of 18 The motion was seconded by J. Wright. A roll call vote was taken. Yes votes were cast by J. Wright, D. Castro, and Chair Atherton. No votes were cast by M. Crull and D. Nier. The motion carries 3-2. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the October 24th meeting. F. NEW BUSINESS None. G. CONSIDERATIONS None. H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS None. I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING None. ADJOURNMENT Seeing and hearing no further comments, Chair Atherton requested a motion to adjourn. M. Crull motioned to adjourn, D. Castro seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. The meeting adjourned 9:05pm. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on [DATE]. ITEM F1  City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission (Board of Appeals) Staff Report November 16, 2016 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members SUBJECT: Zoning Board of Appeals Case Number 17-2016 GENERAL INFORMATION: A. Purpose: Granting a special use permit for an existing church and a variation to reduce a front yard setback from twenty-five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) along Third Street for a distance of approximately 32’ to accommodate the addition of an attached canopy over the driveway adjacent to the building entrance adjacent to Third Street. B. Location First Lutheran Church, 324 N. 3rd C. Lot Size 156’ by 198’ or approximately 30,888 sqft. D. Existing Zoning “RC-1” Residential Conservation District E. Existing/Proposed Land Use Church/Canopy addition over west drive entrance F. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: “RC-1”; Parking Lot South: “PD-C”; Library East: “RC-1”; Methodist Church and Parking Lot West: “RC-1”; residential dwelling G. Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial H. Flood Plain Designation Not in a floodplain PZC084-16 324 N Third Church SUP-Variance -SR Reason for Request As shown in the picture below, First Lutheran Church has an existing driveway on the west side of the property that provides direct access to a side door constructed as part of a building addition completed in or around the year 2001. While there is currently a small canopy over the door, it is not large enough to protect people from the weather when they are entering or exiting cars. Their request is to allow construction of a canopy over that part of the driveway near the existing side door along Third Street in order to provide safe ingress/egress for their parishioners. According to the applicant, the congregation is aging and requires a more accessible entrance. A canopy structure over the existing driveway requires a variation to allow a reduction in the yard setback from 25’ to 0’. Because the church pre-dates the current zoning ordinance, which lists churches as a special use, the applicant’s petition also includes a request for a special use to authorize the existing church. The Planning and Zoning Commission will be acting as the Zoning Board of Appeals on the variation, while the request for a special use requires a recommendation by the PZC be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Original Building Addition PAGE 2 Discussion The Lutheran Church is located on the southeast corner of Third and Pine Street. The original building can be seen in the image on the previous page with the brown roof. The original main entrance was at the northwest corner of the building. A later church expansion was added to the south of the original building, with a new secondary building entrance off of a new u-shaped driveway along Third Street. The recently completed library expansion included the vacation of Third Street south of the Lutheran church, effectively turning what used to be a through street into a cul-de-sac for the church and the residence across the street. The existing driveway along the west side of the church is used as a drop off in inclement weather, as an accessible entrance for the elderly and disabled, and for weddings and funerals. As can be seen in the picture below, the existing canopy over the door does not provide adequate protection from the weather for the loading and unloading of people. The image on the next page shows a concept drawing for the proposed canopy. The structure is supported by two piers that appear to utilize the same brick material on the existing building. The piers are located behind an existing curb which separates the existing driveway and public sidewalk. This curb is roughly located on the property line so the piers are proposed to be located with a 0’ setback. The concept also includes a matching hip roof to emulate the same roofline above. PAGE 3  Note that the concept includes a note that the “planned canopy to be wider”. The partial site plan document shown below indicates the proposed canopy to be 23.5’x32’, which does appear to be wider than the concept illustration to the left. Staff recommends the variation to reduce the setback to 0’ be only for the width of the canopy. This would prevent further building additions or structures in the setback area other than the proposed canopy. The applicant should be asked to confirm the exact width of the structure, and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s authorization should stipulate the variation be limited to only that width. Staff further recommends imposing conditions that the final approval be subject to staff review to confirm substantial compliance with the concept picture shown above. Specifically, the final design should include brick piers to match the brick on the existing building, and should incorporate a hip roof that is centered and emulates the roof line of the existing building above the proposed canopy. Final approval should also be subject to any Building Code requirements or requirements by the DeKalb Fire Department to ensure adequate clearance under the canopy if needed. PAGE 4 Analysis. Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA) The zoning evaluation of any request involving religious institutions is subject to scrutiny under RLUIPA, which was passed by Congress on July 27, 2000 and signed into law by President Clinton on September 22, 2000. The law provides that “no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution” unless the government can demonstrate that it has a “compelling governmental interest” in the regulation and there is no less-burdensome method of meeting that interest. The City of DeKalb’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) permits churches as conditional uses in residential districts and permitted uses in commercial districts. The First Lutheran Church’s building expansion in 2001 in a residential zoning district would have been subject to the scrutiny of RLUIPA. First Lutheran’s request for the proposed canopy structure is made with an argument that “the congregation of the church is growing older and the ease in which the parishioners are able to enter and leave the church becomes more critical as time goes on.” In evaluating the standards for the requested variation to allow the canopy to be constructed with a reduced setback from twenty five feet (25)’ to zero feet (0’), and the standards for authorizing a special use, the PZC and City may not apply the UDO’s strict requirements if they impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of any person unless there is a compelling governmental interest. Therefore, the findings presented below incorporate this consideration. Standards and Findings of Fact for Variations The request has been reviewed using the criteria regarding variances stated in Article 18, Section 18.03.03 of the UDO, titled “Findings of Fact,” as follows: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations of that district. The concept of “reasonable return” for a church property relates to the return the church might get if it were to sell the property at some future time, as compared to other properties of similar size and character. The key question is whether requiring conformance with the zoning restriction still allows for a reasonable return upon its sale, or if such conformance unduly depresses the value of the property. In this instance, requiring the setback to be maintained results in a situation where providing a drop off area that provides protection from the weather could not be achieved. Prospective future purchasers may see this as a disadvantage, which could depress the property’s value. PAGE 5  Furthermore, under RLUIPA, a restriction may not impose a burden that prevents people from exercising their religious beliefs without a compelling government interest. In this case, a driveway already exists that provides direct accessible access to an entrance door. With the aging population described by the applicant and an interest to provide safe passage of those people into and out of the church, staff cannot determine any compelling interest in denying a canopy over an existing driveway given the visual impact this structure would have on the immediate neighborhood. There is an interest in limiting the extent of the variation to reduce the setback for only that distance necessary to accommodate the canopy. The setback variation allowing construction at the property line will therefore only be applicable for the distance necessary to accommodate the canopy. 2. The extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property, requiring the request for the variance, were not caused by the applicant. The location of the original Church building with a non-conforming 23.5 foot setback along Third Street was established prior to the City establishing its zoning regulations. The church was allowed to continue that setback with the later addition. The need for the variation to accommodate the canopy is the result of the City establishing setbacks well after the establishment of the conditions of the property. 3. The proposed variance will alleviate a peculiar, exceptional, or undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience or pecuniary hardship. Being required to comply with the ordinance would prevent the Church from making an improvement that would enhance the safety of those elderly and disabled people who access the property via this existing drive. 4. The denial of the proposed variance will deprive the applicant of the use of his/her property in a manner equivalent to the use permitted to be made by the owners of property in the immediate area. There are two other churches in the immediate area, zoned RC-1. None of these churches have a driveway access to a main door on the lot. Instead, most entrance doors are at a higher grade, with steps leading to the door. RLUIPA standards apply in this instance because accessible entry to the west door is already provided by a driveway that is built at the same grade. The canopy is proposed with a design that minimizes the extent of the necessary variation. It is not an enclosed structure and is not unnecessarily large to meet the intended purpose of providing access in a more weather controlled climate for the congregation’s aging population. 5. The proposed variance will result in a structure that is appropriate to and compatible with the character and scale of structures in the area in which the variance is being requested. PAGE 6 The proposed canopy will be compatible with the character and scale of structure in the area. Operating effectively as a cul-de-sac, this section of Third Street is part of an area where the character is defined by the new library to the south and the residence to the west. The library to the south is oriented so that its rear lot line and building façade define the character of the area. The road ends with an access to the library’s parking lot that turns to the west. There is only one residential structure in this block, located across the street to the west. It does face Third Street, including a sidewalk and steps leading to a front door. The yard is enclosed with an open iron fence established at the property line as shown in the picture to the left. Note that the door also includes a canopied porch structure with a hip roof similar in appearance to the proposed canopy. The extent of the requested variation to reduce the yard setback to the property line for the church structure across the street from this residence is minimized for only a distance of about 32’, or enough to accommodate a structure that provides protection from the weather. Additionally, the structure being constructed is open, with only the piers and the higher roof structure itself encroaching into the setback. The setback variation will not apply except for the distance necessary to accommodate the canopy structure. PAGE 7 Standards and Findings of Fact for Special Uses Section 14.03 of the UDO requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to make findings with regard to several standards for special uses, which are listed below in bold. A proposed finding of fact is listed under each standard in italics. 1. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. The proposed special use for a church is being retroactively applied to a structure that predates current zoning requirements. The property is zoned RC-1 and is located in the City’s central area, where other churches occupy lots in a similar manner. While there are several UDO bulk regulations that are non-conforming, there would be no compelling governmental interest in applying these standards to a building that has existed in this location for so many years. Except for the variation being requested to accommodate the canopy, no additional relief from the requirements of the UDO are being requested. 2. 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. The existing church has co-existed with other properties in the neighborhood for many years and there is no evidence that the presence of the structure has been detrimental to the value of other neighboring properties. The recent expansion of the library across vacated Third Street right-of-way to the south of the church has altered the neighborhood along Third Street and made it less public. Third Street in this area acts more like a private driveway or access area leading to three properties than it does a public street. 3. 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: a. The location, nature and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences on the site; and The existing building and improvements have been part of the neighborhood for many years. Except for the proposed canopy structure that is part of this petition, no other modifications to the existing building are contemplated. PAGE 8  b. The nature and extent of proposed landscaping and screening on the proposed site. No changes are proposed for the existing landscaping. c. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The site is already served with adequate utility and drainage facilities. A proposed canopy structure with measurements of approximately 23.5’x32’ will include a new hip roof. It will be necessary to accommodate the flow of water from this new roof in a manner that does not create a hazard or a nuisance d. The proposed use, where such developments and uses are deemed consistent with good planning practice, or 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 granting of a special use for this structure and use which has existed on the site for many years is a desirable part of the community’s fabric and historic development pattern near the central business district. The existing structure is visually attractive. Like many other churches in the immediate area, parking is provided off-site, and the demands for parking are off-peak from other nearby uses. With the exception of a proposed variation to accommodate a canopy structure over an existing driveway to allow people to be dropped off in a manner that protects them from inclement weather conditions, the project does not require relief from other regulations of the district. Citizen Input There was no correspondence received as a result of the mailing that went out for this public hearing. Recommendation Like many other existing churches in the area, First Lutheran Church is part of the fabric of the community. It was built in a time that pre-dates existing zoning requirements. Staff supports both the special use authorizing the existing church, as well as the variation to allow the canopy extension over the existing driveway. The canopy will provide weather PAGE 9 protection for those who use the drive and entrance for access into and out of the building. The condition being imposed on the variation to limit the setback reduction to only that distance necessary to accommodate the new canopy structure allows for the needed structure without the possibility that additional building expansions will be constructed without further City consideration. Two separate actions are required by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a recommendation to the City Council regarding the special use, and action on the necessary variation to reduce the west yard setback from twenty five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) for a distance not to exceed thirty-two feet (32)’ to accommodate a canopy structure over the existing door. Two sample motions are provided for the PZC’s consideration: Sample Special Use Motion: Based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward its findings of fact and recommend to the City Council approval of the special use associated with Case PZC 17-2016 subject to the following conditions: 1. Final design is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director to determine substantial compliance with the “Concept Illustration” provided in the staff report prepared for the November 16, 2016 meeting. Specifically, the improvement must include the following: a. Brick piers that are consisting with materials on the existing building b. A hip roof that is centered under and emulates the roof line of the existing building above the proposed canopy 2. Plans for the approved final design must be submitted to the Building Division of the Community Development Department for review and approval. Sample Variation Motion: Based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a variation to reduce the required setback in the west yard of the Subject Property located at 324 N. 3rd Street from twenty five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) for a distance not to exceed thirty- two feet (32’) to accommodate a canopy structure over an existing driveway subject to the following conditions: 1. Final design is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director to determine substantial compliance with the PAGE 10  “Concept Illustration” provided in the staff report prepared for the November 16, 2016 meeting. Specifically, the improvement must include the following: a. Brick piers that are consistent with materials on the existing building b. The structure must be open on the north, south and west sides (no walls) and contain hip roof that is centered under and emulates the roof line of the existing building above the proposed canopy. 2. Plans for the approved final design must be submitted to the Building Division of the Community Development Department for review and approval. Respectfully Submitted, Jo Ellen Charlton Community Development Director PAGE 11 October 27, 2016 Dear Property Owner: The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will consider a request on petitions by David Olsen representing First Lutheran Church, for approval of a special use permit for an existing church and a variation request to reduce a front yard setback from twenty-five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) along Third Street for a distance of approximately 32’ to accommodate an the addition of an attached canopy over the Third Street building entrance. The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will review these requests and hold a public hearing on or after their regular meeting of November 16, 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 welcome you to submit any written comments you may have on the proposal no later than Wednesday, November 9, 2016. You may submit written comments regarding the request on the enclosed comment sheet by fax to (815) 748-2359, by mail to the address listed above, or by e-mail to dhiland@cityofdekalb.com. All comments will be shared with the Commission and included in the public record. The alderman for the Third Ward is Mike Marquardt. Alderman Marquardt can be reached at (815) 970-7337, or by e-mail at Mike.Marquardt@cityofdekalb.com. 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Applicant PZC081-16  Citizen Response Form Lutheran Church Special Use / Variance Requests Owners Name: _____________________________________________________________ Property Address: ___________________________________________________________ Basic Input: □ I support the proposal. □ I support the proposal in general but would like to see specifics before I decide. □ I do not support the proposal. Written Comments: PZC081-16 324 N Third Church SUP-Variance - 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 Wednesday, November 16, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on petitions by David Olsen representing First Lutheran Church, for approval of a special use permit for an existing church and a variation request to reduce a front yard setback from twenty-five feet (25’) to zero feet (0’) along Third Street for a distance of approximately 32’ to accommodate an the addition of an attached canopy over the 3rd Street building entrance. The property is legally described as: PARCEL ONE: LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 IN BLOCK 3 OF LEWIS HUNTLEY’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DEKALB, DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PARCEL 2: LOTS 6, 7 AND 8 IN BLOCK 5 OF LEWIS HUNTLEY’S ADDITION TO DEKALB, (EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 8, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8, A DISTANCE OF 14.0 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8 THAT IS 26.0 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHERLY, 26.0 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING), SITUATED IN DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS. The aforementioned legal description is comprised of Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 08-23-154-001. The property is located at 324 N Third Street, DeKalb IL 60115. All interested persons are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above. Interested persons are also encouraged to submit written comments on these proposals to the City of DeKalb, Community Development Department, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, 60115 by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2016. Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748-2060. Christina Atherton, Chairman DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission PZC081-16 324 N Third Church SUP-Variance - NPN Page 3 of 4 324 N. Third Street – Special Use Permit / Variance Request PZC081-16 324 N Third Church SUP-Variance - NPN Page 4 of 4 ITEM F2  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 10, 2016 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: CASE #PZC-16-2016 – 2111 – 2131 E. Lincoln Highway to Planned Development Commercial Request the Continue to November 30, 2016 This subject petition requests a planned development zoning and final plan/plat approval to accommodate a Casey’s General Store in a 4,356 square foot building located at the NW corner of East Lincoln Highway and Peace Road. The petitioner has requested a continuation of the public hearing in order to finalize the plans and work through a few remaining details before the items are brought to the Commission for consideration. The following sample motion is provided: I move that Case #PZC-16-2016 be continued to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s meeting on November 30, 2016. PZC084-16 Peace-Lincoln PUD (Caseys) RZN, PDC - CONTINUATION REQUEST CASE #PZC-16-2016