Planning & Zoning Commission

DeKalb Municipal Building Council Chambers 200 S. Fourth St., 2nd Floor DeKalb, IL 60115 AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission December 6, 2017 6:00 PM A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 8, 2017 D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing on City-initiated text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance”: Article 13 “Signs,” Section 13.07.07(1) to allow projecting signs in the “CBD” Central Business District to include products sold with restrictions on text and size and any related amendments deemed necessary pursuant to public hearing and review. F. REPORTS G. ADJOURNMENT  MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 8, 2017 The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on November 8, 2017 at the City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 S. Fourth St., DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM. A. ROLL CALL Principal Planner, Dan Olson, called the roll. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were Chair Christina Atherton, Katharina Barbe, Vicki Buckley, David Castro, Deborah Nier and Jerry Wright. Member Matthew Crull was absent. City staff present were Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton, City Attorney Dean Frieders, Principal Planner Dan Olson and Recording Secretary Linda Odom. B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Additions/Deletions) Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the November 8, 2017 agenda as presented. Ms. Barbe motioned to approve the agenda as presented, Ms. Nier seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2017 – Ms. Buckley motioned to approve the minutes as presented, Ms. Barbe seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None E. NEW BUSINESS Continued Public Hearing on a petition by Central States Tower II, LLC, represented by Richard Connor Riley, for approval of a Special Use Permit for a 140-foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located at the southeast portion of the property at 1300 South Seventh Street, DeKalb, IL. PETITIONER PRESENTATION The applicant, Mr. Richard Riley, speaking on behalf of Central States Tower II, LLC (CST), presented a 12 page slide show indicating how they were compliant Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 2 of 13 with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and also provided their responses and past communications with the City. He said a Verizon RF (Radio Frequency) Engineer, Trisha Bhuyan, is present to talk about some specific issues on behalf of Verizon. He went through on how they are compliant with City’s co-location protocol in the UDO. Mr. Riley mentioned they performed analysis on two locations including the adjacent AT&T tower which he said is an expensive option. The Taylor Street Plaza building (507 E. Taylor St.) location is too far from the search ring where they need a tower. Mr. Riley noted he feels the area along s. 7th St. is in need of service, which was confirmed by Pyramid Consultants who was hired by the City. He showed a list of proposed Verizon Wireless sites in the area and the resulting coverage map. He added that locating a cell tower at the proposed location would help other carrier’s service too because they could co-locate on the tower. Mr. Riley distributed copies of the staff report dated November 3, 2017 that was provide in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s packet and summarized the report. He noted the history of the proposed tower and the special use permit they received to co-locate on the AT&T tower, however they decided that they could not proceed because of the cost. He added they submitted an affidavit at the August 23, 2017 public hearing from a construction engineer for Verizon indicating that the changes suggested by AT&T would not significantly decrease the co-location costs and would still be over $400,000. Mr. Riley stated again Pyramid Consulting concurred with the assessment that the cost would still be over $400,000. Mr. Riley went over the findings of fact for cellular antenna facilities in the UDO. He discussed the visual points of interest, color, height, setbacks, lighting, fencing & security, landscaping & screening, and tower design. Mr. Riley stated again he feels the applicant has complied with the intent of the co-location protocol in the UDO and the standards for a special use. He noted the special use will not dominate the immediate area and will not prevent development on the neighboring properties. He added the proposed tower will accommodate the co-location of three addition cell providers, which will reduce the possibility of new cell towers being constructed in the area. Mr. Riley stated that AT&T has petitioned the State of Illinois to abandon their land line network because of cost to keep them up. He noted that Verizon does not build their own towers anymore as they hire consultants to find sites for them. He went over the conditions at the end of the staff report (dated November 3, 2017) and indicated they do not have any issues with them except for #5. He said the applicant needs to present information about the dimensions of the panels of the antenna to be affixed to the top of the tower which will be evaluated based on the visual impact of the area. He feels the panels are an intricate part of the radio frequency engineering and Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 3 of 13 they would pick the least visually obtrusive one. He asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the special use permit tonight. Mr. Riley introduced RF Engineer, Trisha Bhuyan, from Verizon Wireless located at 1515 Woodfield Rd, Schaumburg, IL. She is responsible for the design of facilities and the coverage and capacity for Verizon cell service in Illinois. Mr. Riley noted Ms. Bhuyan prepared the coverage maps that were presented to the Commission. Ms. Bhuyan explained they need coverage in this part of DeKalb near I-88. Ms. Bhuyan stated that the Taylor Street Plaza building location would not work, as it is about .5 miles from their search ring as shown on the maps provided. DeKalb City Attorney, Dean Frieders, asked Ms. Bhuyan some questions. He asked if she agreed if there was an existing location or tower available, would it be preferable to co-locate on the tower, with all factors being equal, instead of building a new tower. Ms. Bhuyan responded that yes she agrees with the statement that co-location is preferable. He asked what is the effective range of a cellular tower. She responded it varies depending on the height of the antenna and the terrain in the surround area. She noted that flat terrain enhances the range. Mr. Frieders asked how tall the building on Taylor Street is. Ms. Bhuyan responded that it 5-7 stories tall and they did not pick that location because it’s close to another cell site and it would be duplicating their own coverage. She added they wanted further coverage and have to look at obstructions and the speed of their service could lag if there is interference with the tower. Ms. Bhuyan stated they have several towers in the DeKalb area and they need more cell towers not as high since it helps with capacity. She noted that elevation does increase distance of coverage but if towers are too close, there is no benefit. Mr. Frieders asked if one cannot locate antenna within a preferred location on their grid is there anything you can do to adjust a less desirable location to make it functional by changing the height or equipment. Ms. Bhuyan said they could but would have to compromise on the service provided, as they would have to make an adjustment to a neighboring cell site. Mr. Frieders said there is an existing Verizon tower near I-88 and Annie Glidden Road and asked the distance from that tower to the one proposed. Ms. Bhuyan responded by saying maybe more than a mile, but wasn’t sure on the exact distance. Mr. Frieders asked if there was any vertical obstructions between the location of that tower along I-88 and the area of need along S. 7th St. She said there was nothing between the tower on I-88 and the area of need. Mr. Frieders asked her to describe the search radius of the search ring she used. She responded by saying the radius was about ¼ mile. Mr. Frieders asked Ms. Bhuyan about the costs of a new cell tower. She responded by indicating she is Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 4 of 13 not responsible for construction so could not provide an estimate. He asked who at Verizon would be responsible for that. She responded she did not know. Mr. Frieders asked her if all other factors were equal, including costs, would you prefer to co-locate or build a new tower. Ms. Bhuyan said she would prefer to co- locate on an existing tower. Mr. Frieders suggested that some costs of constructing the new Verizon tower, provided in the two estimates provided to the City, could be off or excluded. Mr. Riley said Ms. Bhuyan is not responsible for soil samples or construction costs. Mr. Riley did say the AT&T tower would work from an RF Engineering standpoint. Mr. Frieders clarified with Ms. Bhuyan that she has no familiarity with exploration of physical conditions on the ground at the proposed tower location like soil borings, geological studies, etc. She said no that’s not her responsibility. Mr. Frieders continued to ask Mr. Riley construction questions. Mr. Frieders said in the documentation submitted there were two Verizon pricing estimates that appeared to exclude some items such as the tower itself, erection costs, and the foundation for the tower. Mr. Frieders noted there were some blanks in the cost estimate provided by Verizon and Pyramid was within a couple thousand dollars away from Verizon’s estimate. Mr. Frieders said the City is trying to understand the cost of co-location on the AT&T Tower as compared to the cost of installing a new tower. Mr. Riley reiterated that co-locating on the AT&T Tower is considerably higher than installing a new tower and said the Verizon estimates included the cost to construct the tower. Mr. Frieders asked if there has been an investigation conducted at this site yet. Mr. Riley said he didn’t believe so, as that would come after the zoning process is completed and prior to the permit. Mr. Frieders stated that Verizon is indicating that it is too costly to co-locate on the AT&T Tower, but we wanted to make sure there are no unanticipated costs that were not included in the Verizon estimates. Mr. Olson went over the staff report dated November 3, 2017 provided in the Commission’s packet. Mr. Frieders reviewed some points from the staff report, including the cost of co- location versus new construction. He noted there is a need to explore everything to make sure the information and estimates provided to the City are correct. He stated the cost comparison piece is missing for the construction of a new tower. Mr. Frieders said this is important to make sure the co-location protocol is completely satisfied. Chair Atherton opened it up for questions from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Barbe wanted confirmation on the address of 1300 S. 7th St. in the staff report versus “State Highway 23 & Fairview” as noted on the plan set Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 5 of 13 provided. The applicant and the City clarified that the “State Highway 23 & Fairview” label on the plan set was just a general location and would be corrected. Ms. Nier asked for clarification that from the City’s perspective co- location is preferable and the AT&T cost estimate for Verizon to co-locate on their tower is approximately $440,000 and that is why they do not want to co- locate. She also wanted confirmation on the letter from Pyramid on what their cost estimate for co-location is referring to. Mr. Frieders noted the estimates from Verizon and Pyramid reference co-location on the CST tower and not the construction of the tower itself. Ms. Nier stated we really don’t know if the cost differential is a factor and don’t know if it’s cost effective for Verizon to build their own tower versus co-location. Mr. Riley said the estimates given by Verizon and Pyramid deal with construction costs of a new tower not co-location. Ms. Nier said Mr. Riley is implying then that Pyramid has miss-labeled the figures they provided. She asked the City if we can confirm the estimate by Pyramid. Mr. Frieders said we cannot confirm that with Pyramid at this time, however Verizon’s estimates are missing some construction prices including tower foundation, tower erection/crane and the tower itself. He added the Pyramid estimate exclusively describes co-location on a new CST tower and nothing discusses tower construction costs. Ms. Buckley asked about the Pyramid estimate and the reference to “typical steel platform” and “typical antenna structure” and if that means construction of the tower itself. Mr. Frieders responded that in reviewing the documentation from Pyramid that it discusses co-location costs only. He added that a monopole the City purchased for the police station far exceeded the “typical steel platform” and “typical antenna structure” estimates in the Pyramid letter. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Chair Atherton opened the floor for public comment. William Oleckno, 1622 Sleepy Hollow Lane, DeKalb, asked about the distance from the Taylor Street Plaza building to the proposed Verizon tower. Ms. Bhuyan stated the building on Taylor St. would not serve them as the building is too far north and will duplicate coverage. She added the new Verizon tower near I-88 and Annie Glidden Road is too far away also. Mr. Oleckno looked at requirements in the UDO and didn’t see where cost was a consideration in co- location. He was concerned on how do you evaluate the costs in determining to approve a new tower or not. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 6 of 13 Mr. Frieders stated that in 2015 the City Council authorized the purchase of a used monopole tower that was installed at the police station for $86,766. The cost was exclusive of transportation, installation, foundation work, engineering and everything related. Linda Liston,1117 Gifford St. in DeKalb, stated one reason the petitioner is saying this location is important is for the building on the subject site to receive better cell service. She added it’s not an uncommon problem with businesses to have poor cell service because the construction of the building. She said there are companies that will help businesses improve their internal signal and asked if the business owner looked into this. Mr. Jim Hovis, owner of the building on the subject site, said his cell service is good around the perimeter of the building, but is poor inside. He said he hasn’t looked at ways to improve cell service inside the building, such as boosters. Mr. Hovis talked about the coverage maps and who would benefit from this, including surrounding businesses, and encouraged the Commission to approve the special use permit for the tower. Dave Lehman, 621 Karen Ave. stated Verizon could have suggested a repeater for Mr. Hovis’ signal problem. Ms. Bhuyan admitted there are other options to improve signals inside buildings, however the intent of the proposed tower was to improve in-vehicle and other coverage for the area. Mr. Lehman said he visited several companies in the area of the proposed tower and some said they don’t want good cell coverage for safety factors. He went over the slide show he brought and stated he is opposed to the proposed cell tower as it would be unsightly and there are other locations they could co-locate. Mr. Lehman said he thought the motivation of the petitioner is business oriented only and feels the proposed tower is unnecessary. He added that co-location would be the best option and there is no justification for construction of a new tower. He hopes the Commission will consider the actions and results of the petitioner and not approve the special use permit to CST as it will be contrary to the stipulations of the UDO governing new cell tower construction. Deanne Hamilton-White, 614 Spring Ave. DeKalb, asked about new technology for antenna devices that are small and if they are put on public utility poles would they interfere with the antennas on the monopole. Ms. Bhuyan said more dense cities are able to use them, however DeKalb is not a large dense urban area. She added to replace the coverage of a tower with antennas on utility poles, they would need 15-30 utility poles to cover the same area. Ms. Hamilton-White asked if that would be more economical to do the antennas on the utility poles instead of the tower in this situation. Ms. Bhuyan said no it would not. Ms. Bhuyan said we cannot compare DeKalb to more dense urban areas and the City is not a candidate for this right now. Mr. Frieders said there are a couple Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 7 of 13 companies researching small antenna infrastructure for DeKalb. Chair Atherton asked if these mini antennas are made for smaller areas. Chair Atherton asked if we put some on a corner of an intersection near the subject site would it cover that much. Ms. Bhuyan said it would only cover the intersection. Mr. Frieders said for Sycamore Road, they look at a spacing of between 500-1,000 feet per unit to handle the coverage for the area. Donna Larkin, 432 Karen St., DeKalb, stated she agrees with Mr. Lehman’s presentation and would like to see the co-location options used first. She added the cost for a new tower could become more expensive for Verizon than expected. She mentioned she has no problems with her cell service and lives close to the proposed tower location. Ms. Larkin added she knows people that work at Panduit, Nestle & 3M and they don’t have problems making calls. She is concerned about property values of the neighborhood and the residents are the ones that have to look at the tower. She asked the Commission to make a good sound decision based on all the information they have seen and heard. James Duck, 307 S. 7th St., said his house is directly across from the proposed tower. He noted he has never received notification of this proposal from the City and that he only received a letter from Mr. Riley. He bought his house two years ago and was concerned about the adjacent AT&T tower. His realtor assured him there was no cell communications on this tower, which helped him with his decision to buy the house. Mr. Duck mentioned he looked into the health risks of cell towers and was eased by the information he found out. He stated he would like to see co-location used and was concerned about decreased property values the tower would cause. He wondered why the tower has to be so close to residential area and feels the tower by I-88 should be looked into. He concluded by saying the lack of investigation into other sites tells him something else is going on here and for that reason he wants to voice his opposition to the application. Mr. Richard Larson, 12284 Fairview Drive, DeKalb reminded the Commission they are acting in a judicial capacity and need to consider whether the testimony presented by the petitioner is valid and legitimate evidence. He noted police state 80% of 911 calls are from cell phones and the petitioner stated there are many dropped calls in this area, however there was no supporting data provided. Mr. Larson said Mr. Riley called Ms. Bhuyan as a witness and was asking her leading questions. He said the reason Central States Tower doesn’t want to look at co-location is because they lose the opportunity for additional income from other carriers. Mr. Larson referred to the statement by Mr. Frieders that we should use other options that have a lower impact, such as the alternative for Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 8 of 13 small wireless development. Mr. Larson concluded by stating there are alternatives and suggested these be explored and to deny the application. Chair Atherton asked if anyone else wants to speak. There were none. Chair Atherton gave the Commissioner’s an opportunity to ask any questions. Ms. Buckley asked Ms. Bhuyan the actual coverage area the new tower is designed to handle. Ms. Bhuyan referred to the coverage maps and responded that it will cover the immediate area and areas south covering the I-88 corridor. Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Riley upon completion of new tower, will it be owned by CST or Verizon. Mr. Riley responded by stating CST would own it and Verizon dealt with the AT&T co-location, not CST. He added CST would rent to other carriers, but does not know if any other carriers have inquired to rent it at this time. Ms. Buckley asked what the average cost of a monopole is. Mr. Riley responded that it is approximately $170,000. He added he feels there has been a lot of confusion about co-location and new construction of a monopole. He added the two bids provided by Verizon and Pyramid were for building a new tower and not co-location and there is a cost differential of $269,000 with the AT&T estimate. Mr. Frieders stated he disagrees with this position and stated again the cost for the tower construction were excluded in the estimates. Mr. Riley disagreed and listed off some of the expenses. Ms. Nier asked the Commission if their preference is for co-location or for a new tower, disregarding the cost to the applicant. Mr. Castro said they have a judicial duty in reviewing this and if they allow this tower, they will be setting a precedence for other towers in the City. He stated he would not like a large number of towers in the City. Mr. Castro asked Ms. Bhuyan if she could prepare a coverage map with an antenna on the top of Taylor Street Plaza building. She explained how the map and coverage would look and that it would not cover the area they need to. Mr. Castro would be interested in having a Verizon business representative at the hearing as they should be concerned with branding. He added that this is not a good start for Verizon & CST and the City of DeKalb. Mr. Castro requested clarification on the UDO statement that co-location is a matter of public policy. He asked is this the policy of the City or an ordinance. Mr. Frieders said public policy is intended to help guide the decision and the ordinance itself is the regulation. He concluded that information that comes from the co-location process can be used by the Commission in the findings of fact for the special use request. Chair Atherton asked for a motion to extend the meeting another hour, per the Commission’s by-laws. Mr. Wright so moved, seconded by Ms. Barbe, the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 9 of 13 Ms. Barbe looked at coverage maps provided and noted that on Verizon’s website, coverage is shown as adequate for the area. She questioned the need for additional cell service coverage in the area. Ms. Bhuyan noted Verizon’s coverage is not as good as it can be. She added the coverage degrades as more customers make calls, download data and use the internet. Mr. Riley commented that no one ever questions the RF Engineer except when it comes to this subject. Ms. Barbe said as a Commissioner, it’s her duty to look at all the information. Mr. Wright said he always likes to be progressive, although this is a tough decision. Chair Atherton wanted to clarify something for the record. She noted that Mr. Lehman made a comment in his presentation that it was the Commission that wanted the Verizon representative to be present at the hearing, however this was something the public wanted as well. Chair Atherton provided the public one more chance to speak. Dave Lehman, 621 Karen Ave. DeKalb, brought up a company in Rockford that sells antennas and asked how far the antennas on the proposed Verizon tower would reach. Ms. Bhuyan responded on average about a 2-5 miles radius and can be boosted to go as much as 10 miles, depending on location. Donna Larkin, 432 Karen Ave, DeKalb, stated she doesn’t understand why they want to keep increasing the number of towers and why can’t they co-locate on the higher AT&T tower and increase their coverage distance. Ms. Bhuyan said the farther you go up it will degrade the signal coverage. Ms. Larkin said she feels it’s all about money for the applicant and that is very unfortunate. Chair Atherton asked for one more call from the public. Jim Hovis, owner of the subject property, stated he wanted to clarify some misunderstandings he thought he heard. He will be getting paid $10,000 a year for rent for the tower if it’s approved. He noted it’s hard to make a profit with this building and he needs renters. Mr. Riley said there has been a lot of discussion tonight and the standards in the UDO have to be complied with in order to be approved and he thinks they should be approved since they comply with the standards. He noted every applicant should be held to that standard. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 10 of 13 Chair Atherton asked if there are any other questions or comments. She asked about the cell tower by Annie Glidden Rd. and I-88 and about the paint on that tower. Mr. Olson he wasn’t sure because it was approved through DeKalb County. Antoinette (Toni) Heinze from 258 Rolfe Rd, DeKalb, said she is very troubled the applicant would lecture the Commission regarding the rules and standards. She added that from day one, CST has shown disdain and disrespect for the City’s rules. She continued by stating this has been a long journey and CST has been misleading and reluctant to submit information. Chair Atherton asked again if City or Commissioners have any further statements. Mr. Olson reminded the Commission if they wish to recommend denial of the request, the findings of fact in the staff report need to be adjusted accordingly. Ms. Buckley wanted Mr. Olson to clarify what he meant by the findings of fact being adjusted. Mr. Olson said the standards for a special use starting on pg. 9 of the staff report are in support of the request, so they would have to modify the language, if they wanted to deny it. William Oleckno, 1622 Sleepy Hollow Lane, DeKalb, said the special use petition requires on a separate piece of paper to describe the proposed use characteristics and how they are in conformance with the UDO and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Olson replied the land use recommendation in the Plan is “Light Industrial”, but the applicant did not provide a separate statement. Mr. Frieders recommended to the Commission they need to decide if they want to continue the hearing or not. He advised the Commission if they do close the hearing, there will be more detailed discussion with the findings to deny the request. Mr. Castro indicated he did not want to continue the public hearing tonight. The Commission was in agreement not to continue the hearing. Chair Atherton closed the public hearing at 9:44 p.m. Mr. Frieders said if the Commission reached a conclusion contrary to what the staff report contemplates he would talk through the factors and findings for each and the Commission could authorize the Chair to sign a set of findings of fact consistent with that recommendation. He added if there is a negative recommendation the Commission should talk about some of the factors and what the analysis would be. The staff report outlines the findings that would be in Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 11 of 13 support of a positive recommendation for the request. Mr. Frieders read each of the five factors for a special use, per Article 14.03.05 of the UDO with findings that would recommend denying the petition. He summarized the findings for each factor for a special use as follows: 1) There was no statement provided by the applicant indicating they complied with all the requirements of the UDO including the Comprehensive Plan. Landscaping and screening were not provided on the plan per the UDO requirements, 2) Testimony at the public hearing from residents indicated that the presence of the existing AT&T Tower and the proposed tower would have a negative impact on property values and this was based upon real property transactions from parcels in the area. He added that testimony was also provided by nearby residents that there are concerns regarding the aesthetic impact of installing additional towers in the area, 3) The Commission received testimony that the proliferation of multiple towers in the area would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood and would dominate the area. There are other towers and buildings in the area that are visible and could accommodate the antennas and provide the needed service, 4) The UDO contemplates that landscape screening will be provided to screen the facilities and that was not shown on the plans; and 5) The City has received testimony from residents in the area that they have adequate cell service. There was no objective documentation provided by the applicant that there was poor cell service in the area. There was testimony provided that Verizon has provided a map on the website indicating there is adequate cell service coverage in the area. Mr. Frieders concluded these are the things that we look at if the Commission heads towards a negative recommendation on this petition and if there is a positive recommendation, it should focus on the outline provided in the staff report. Chair Atherton asked Mr. Frieders to clarify when the Commission votes on the findings of fact and voting in the affirmative and non-affirmative. Mr. Frieders said at times in the past they have voted in the affirmative if they wish to manifest support of a request and failed to vote in the affirmative if they wish to not manifest support. He added that can be confusing so he recommended to the Commission if they want to support it to recommend approval and they don’t wish to support it to recommend denial. This creates a clearer record that is more understandable for everyone. Chair Atherton asked if the Commission can do one finding of fact in the positive and one in the negative. Mr. Frieders said they can go through the findings and make them either in the positive or negative, however from a defensibility perspective consistent findings of fact are preferable if there was a challenge. He encouraged to make findings that are consistent with the evidence that was produced regardless of the impact. Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 12 of 13 Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Frieders if once the Commission votes will it go to the City Council. Mr. Frieders said yes this would go to the City Council, regardless if the Commission recommends approval or not. He added the City Council would have an ordinance before them that would grant the special use so the Council would either approve or not approve it. Mr. Castro made a motion based on the submitted petition and testimony presented that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of a Special Use Permit for a 140 foot tall cellular communications antenna to be located on the subject property located at 1300 S. 7th St. Motion was seconded by Ms. Nier. Mr. Frieders provide two options to the Commission: 1) The motion could encompass authorizing the Chair to sign a set of findings based upon the testimony provided at the hearing, or 2) Each finding could be gone through individually and the Commission would have to come up with language for each. Ms. Nier made an amendment to the motion to allow the City to come up with findings of fact, based upon the testimony provided, and allowing Chair Atherton to approve and sign the findings. Seconded by Ms. Buckley. A roll call vote was taken on the amendment. Mr. Wright – yes, Ms. Nier – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Ms. Buckley - yes, Ms. Barbe – yes, Chair Atherton abstained as chair. Motion passed 6-0-1. Commissioner Crull was absent. Mr. Frieders said this motion is to recommend denial inclusive of the authority of the Chair to sign a set of findings of fact consistent with the testimony and presentation this evening. A roll call vote was taken on the original motion as amended. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – no, Mr. Castro – yes, Ms. Nier – yes, Mr. Wright – yes, Chair Atherton – yes, motion passes 5-1-1 Commissioner Crull was absent. Chair Atherton thanked everyone from the public who has come to speak out on this for the last three years and also to Mr. Riley and all the Commissioners. F. REPORTS Mr. Olson mentioned the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission would be November 22, 2017, however it may be canceled because of Thanksgiving. There are no agenda items so far for the November 22nd meeting. He noted December 6th would be the next meeting after November 22nd, and a meeting is also scheduled for December 20th if there are agenda items. There will be a determination later if there will be a quorum present for the December 20th meeting. G. ADJOURNMENT Planning and Zoning Commission November 8, 2017 Page 13 of 13 Mr. Wright motioned to adjourn, Ms. Buckley seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:00PM. Respectfully Submitted, Linda Odom, Recording Secretary Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on .  City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report DATE: December 1, 2017 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Jo Ellen Charlton, Community Development Director Dan Olson, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2017 Public Hearing - Text Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance Background and Analysis The City has initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Article 13 “Signs,” to allow projecting signs in the “CBD” Central Business District to include products sold with restrictions on text and size. A public hearing notice was prepared and was published in the newspaper on November 18, 2017. In the UDO projecting signs are only allowed in the “CBD” Central Business District. Projecting signs are defined in the UDO as “Any sign which projects from the building wall at any angle other than a plan primarily parallel to the building wall; excluding signs attached to the vertical face of marquees or canopies. Most projecting signs are oriented in a plane perpendicular to the building wall.” In the “CBD” District projecting signs have restrictions on how far they can project from the wall, a maximum square footage and a minimum height the bottom of the sign has to be above the sidewalk. The UDO also requires that projecting signs “shall advertise only the name and/or nature of the business and not any particular product sold (see attached regulations from the UDO). It should be note that “projecting signs” are different than “wall signs” which are defined in the UDO as being “substantially flush with the building wall, shall not extend beyond the wall of the building more than 18 inches and shall not project beyond any property line.” Wall signs have separate regulations regarding size, number allowed and permitted location. The vast majority of businesses have wall signs. Gordon Hardware, located at 514 E. Lincoln Highway, requested earlier this year to erect a projecting sign along the wall of the business facing Lincoln Highway as part of their façade improvement project on the building. Part of the proposed sign included a wrench as part of the bracing of the sign (see drawing below). Since products being sold are not allowed in a projecting sign, they could not construct the sign as proposed. Gordon Hardware modified the sign and did get a permit to erect the sign without the wrench (see photo below). Gordon Hardware would like to modify the sign to include the wrench, however an amendment to the UDO is necessary before the wrench can be added to the sign. Originally Designed Erected It is unclear why the UDO restricts products being sold from projecting signs since wall signs have no such restriction. The UDO does have a list of several prohibited signs including rotating signs, flashing signs, and attention getting devises such as pennants and streamers. The UDO also prohibits signs which contain human or humanized characters, caricatures or cartoons, except for wall signs, awning and projecting signs. Since human or humanized characters, caricatures or cartoons are allowed on projecting signs, it would seem reasonable to allow products sold on the signs also. Exhibit A to the Text Amendment application proposes the following language change: Amend Article 13.07.07 (1)(d) of the UDO by deleting the language and substituting the following: d. The sign shall advertise only the name and/or nature of the business. However, the sign may display a product directly associated with the business. No such product shall violate any other provision of this UDO, nor shall any such product relate to imagery or products of a sexual nature or which appeal to a prurient nature. The original amended language proposed to remove the allowance of humanized, characterized, or cartoonish characters on projecting signs. These figures/characters are also allowed on wall signs and canopies in the UDO. They are prohibited on all other signs (e.g. ground signs). If the Commission wishes to remove humanized, characterized, or cartoonish characters from projecting signs, the sample motion provided below would have to be modified. Recommendation: Sample Motion: I move that the text amendments regarding projecting signs as described in Exhibit A to the Text Amendment application dated 11-17-17 be approved.  TEXT AMENDMENT PETITION TO: City Council, City Clerk, and Mayor of the City of DeKalb, Illinois FROM: Petitioner Name(s): City of DeKalb Telephone: 815-748-2060 Petitioner’s Representative: Dan Olson Cell: Mailing Address: 200 S. 4th St., DeKalb, IL 60115 Email: dan.olson@cityofdekalb.com 1. The petitioner hereby petitions the City of DeKalb to amend the Unified Development Ordinance as follows – attach additional page(s) if necessary: A. What is the text amendment regarding? To allow projecting signs in the “CBD” Central Business District to include products sold with restrictions on text and size B. What Article(s) and Section(s) of the Unified Development Ordinance are proposed for amendment? UDO Article 13 “Signs,” Section 13.07.07(1) C. What is the proposed revised text? See attached Exhibit A D. Describe the reason for this text amendment request, and what the intended effect will be. To allow unique sign design that includes products sold with restrictions on text and size 2. The petitioner hereby submits the Petition Fee ($500.00). 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: not applicable Those in attendance: not applicable *(Note to Petitioner: A pre-application conference with staff is highly encouraged to avoid delays and help in the timely processing of this petition.) March 2017  Exhibit A Amend Article 13.07.07 (1)(d) of the UDO by deleting the language and substituting the following: d. The sign shall advertise only the name and/or nature of the business. However, the sign may display a product directly associated with the business. No such product shall violate any other provision of this UDO, nor shall any such product relate to imagery or products of a sexual nature or which appeal to a prurient nature. 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 Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on City- initiated text amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance”: Article 13 “Signs,” Section 13.07.07(1) to allow projecting signs in the “CBD” Central Business District to include products sold with restrictions on text and size and any related amendments deemed necessary pursuant to public hearing and review. All interested persons are encouraged to submit written comments on this proposal to the City of DeKalb by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2017, 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, Chair DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission City of DeKalb