Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 15, 2015 The City of DeKalb Planning & Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 15, 2015 in the City Council Chambers of the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. CALL TO ORDER Chair Atherton called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Planning & Zoning Commission members present: Roger Ruehling, Matthew Crull, Adam Katz, Christina Atherton, David Castro and Chair Welsh. Also present: Derek Hiland, Principal Planner, Jared Heyn, Administrative Intern, and Brenda Hart, Administrative Assistant. Also in attendance were Attorney Dean Frieders, Fire Chief Hicks and Ellen Divita, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Castro motioned to approve the April 15th agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Katz and was approved by voice vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Atherton noted that a correction needs to be made to the February 11th meeting minutes. Her name was spelled Allerton several times and should be changed to Atherton. Mr. Crull motioned to approve the February 11th minutes with changes, seconded by Mr. Castro and approved by voice vote. CITIZEN COMMENTS Bessie Chronopoulos, DeKalb, IL - Ms. Chronopoulos said that it was brought to her attention that the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to participate in a joint meeting with the City Council and understands that the Planning and Zoning Commission declined. She wants to know why. Chair Atherton responded that she isn’t aware of what is being referred to. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continue a Public Hearing to consider a request by Central States Tower II, LLC, on behalf of James Hovis, for a special use permit (SUP) to erect a new 140 foot cellular communications antenna to be located on property at 1300 South Seventh Street DeKalb, Illinois which is currently zoned Light Industrial (LI). Staff Comments Mr. Hiland noted that sixty days ago this item was before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The intention for allowing the sixty additional days was to allow Central States Tower or Verizon to continue the colocation process on the AT&T tower located seven hundred and fifty feet to the southwest of the proposed new tower location at 1300 S Seventh Street. It was anticipated the applicant would be in attendance in order to share the status. Mr. Hiland indicated a representative PZC051-15 April 15 Minutes.docx 1|Page of Central States Tower is not present at the meeting also noting that he attempted to reach out to the applicant. Upon failure to reach anyone with Central States Tower he instead contacted the AT&T tower representative and spoke with him. Mr. Hiland said there are twenty steps for co-location on an AT&T tower. Previously they were at step four. Thomas Wilson, the AT&T representative, indicated he met the Central States Tower representative on site, walked the site and had discussion agreeing to terms indicating progress being made. Mr. Wilson said they are in between steps six and seven noting that seven, eight and nine are done concurrently and are all at the responsibility of their client. Mr. Hiland asked how long the process typically takes. Mr. Wilson replied that it’s client dependent. Mr. Hiland reiterated attempts to reach the attorney and the applicant over the last sixty days have failed. Public Hearing Chair Atherton opened the Public Hearing David Lehman, 621 Karen Ave – Mr. Lehman presented a power point presentation chronicling the history of the petition of Central States Tower to place a new 140’ cell tower at 1300 S Seventh Street giving his opinion that the petition should be denied due to lack of following correct procedures and the inability to fulfill requirements. Neighboring property owner #1, “Wants to say thank you to David Lehman for giving such a good picture of what has transpired” Property owner #1 lives across from the proposed site and asks that the Commission take their concerns seriously and act in the best interest of the citizens of DeKalb. Linda Liston, 1117 Gifford Street – Ms. Liston expressed being thankful to live in a country that allows free speech. Ms. Liston gave her opinion that there was some bias on the part of the Commission and thanked Mr. Lehman for looking up codes, etc. She said she wants to feel confident that the Commission is acting ethically. Ms. Liston said she is against the proposed tower and asks that the Commission deny the request. Donna Larkin, 432 Karen Ave – Ms. Larkin expressed her disappointment at the length of time this process has taken even though the applicant had not followed the process. She said this petition should be denied, also indicating her opinion is that the co-location on the AT&T Tower would be the best option. Ms. Larkin also expressed dismay over the perceived conflict of interest for Chair Welsh. Chair Atherton closed the Public Hearing. Attorney Frieders noted that the staff recommendation has been a negative recommendation from the start but still allowed the applicant to pursue the process. Mr. Frieders reiterated the staff recommendation to deny the request for a special use permit for the 140’ tower. Mr. Crull noted his frustration with the process as well but said he believes the Commission allowed Central States Tower to continue the process to the end the community would be able to get the best cell coverage possible and not at all as some perceive, because of a business bias. Mr. Castro agreed with previous comment also expressing thankfulness for being able to speak freely about issues pertaining to the public. Mr. Castro noted that the process has taken a very long time but said, from his point of view, the petitioner is offering something we all want. Mr. Castro said our citizens could possibly be asking for the City to make a way for better cell coverage happen. He pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 2 of 11 noted the Commission’s willingness to show flexibility indicates we are willing and wanting to do business. Mr. Castro said even though he wants to be willing to accommodate and be flexible with the applicant, he is still inclined to deny the request. Mr. Katz echoed all other comments and stated that he’s on board to deny the request. Mr. Ruehling indicated his patience has been exhausted with the process. Chair Atherton expressed her frustration as well with the petitioner’s lack of following the process. She noted she had voted no to continuing the process at the March 25th meeting and will do the same tonight. Mr. Castro made a motion to deny the petition for a special use permit for Central State Towers to erect a cellular tower in an Industrial zoned area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Katz. Roll call vote Ruehling– yes, Crull – yes, Castro – yes, Katz – yes, Chair Atherton – yes. 2. Continue a Public Hearing on a rezoning request from “MFR" Multi-Family Residential, to “PD- R” Planned Development Residential, and approval of preliminary and final development plans for University Village PUD, 722 North Annie Glidden Road, DeKalb Chair Welsh opened the Public Hearing Staff Comment Attorney Frieders informed said what is being contemplated is the rezoning from MFR – Multi- Family Residential to PDR-Planned Development Residential allowing the density to remain as it is currently. Mr. Frieders said the question before the Commission is not what the future of the property is or what the ideal solution is if the Commission were considering the property as a blank slate. The narrow question that’s before the Commission is whether the City Council should adopt an ordinance that changes the status of the property from a legal non-conforming zoning status to a residential planned development status that, in essence, codifies in place the property as it sits into perpetuity. Mr. Frieders made note in order for the petitioners to move forward with their financing it is necessary for the rezoning take place. This development is unique and requires particular consideration of fire and building concerns due to the density. Fire Considerations – Mr. Frieders noted that the last fire within the City of DeKalb occurred at this location. 1. Fire Sprinklers - Fire sprinklers would most likely not be required even if the complex were built today. He indicated there would be problems implementing them. 2. Fire alarm system – The City has requested a fully monitored fire alarm system. There are three different phases to the development. The petitioner has provided the plan for fire alarms of different natures for different phases which have been reviewed by staff and which are a significant upgrade to what is currently present. 3. Mr. Frieders noted we have not seen prints for the buildings so can’t comment on the fire rated doors just yet. The petitioner has agreed to place fire extinguishers in the kitchens of each unit. 4. Knox boxes – There will be knox boxes for emergency responders. 5. Fire walls – Fire walls have been requested between units. pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 3 of 11 Planning Issues – Mr. Hiland went through the list of planning issues. 1. Ground mounting of air conditioner condensers. Security Properties has agreed to mount on the ground. 2. Staff and petitioners walked the site determining levels of low lighting and addressed the need for new lights or new levels for lighting to offer a more consistent level line. 3. Landscaping – At present the property is heavily landscaped. New CPTED standards will be implemented on the property coming up with a new design that will allow for crime prevention. 4. Pathways – Cowpaths have been created by foot traffic which indicates where walkways are needed. There is a plan for placement of sidewalks. 5. East property boundary abuts Welsh Park. The recommendation is to put a 5’ fence to create a distinguishable property line between the two. 6. Dumpster enclosures – At present some have doors, some don’t, some have three sides. This needs to be addressed. 7. Density and the parking standards - Parking banking may be used which means there is a parking plan for the future which would meet the needs of the ordinance but possibly not today, at a time it is not needed. 8. Bus Shelters – Need to evaluate locations. 9. Bike Racks – Need to add bike racks for the security of the bikes. 10. Site Plan for Community Center 11. Park Improvements 12. Tot lot 13. Removal of pool and adding a splash park 14. Community space - The City has asked future buyers to allow space for social service agencies. 15. Note and review where snow should be piled. Building Issues – Mr. Frieders said residents expressed their concern over the condition of their homes at the two public meetings, one held at the community center and one held at the church. Following is a list to address many of those concerns: 1. HVAC systems will be replaced addressing inefficiencies. 2. Water heaters will be replaced. If they have been replaced recently and a building permit was obtained when it was replaced they will be able to be used. 3. Pre-work walk-throughs with city staff will need to be scheduled for all units to determine what work needs to be done. City staff has already been invited into many of the homes to address the conditions. 4. Sump pumps will be evaluated and brought into alignment with code. 5. Windows, doors and roofs - All will be replaced within an eighteen month window pursuant to obtaining a building permit. 6. Water lines and gas service lines – Safety measures will be installed on water heaters. One main concern is moisture levels. The building envelope will be looked at and addressed. Will make sure the bathroom ventilation is in order. If mold is found a mold remediation company will be brought in to address it. pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 4 of 11 Police Issues 1. Make security camera improvements on site. Some of the cameras are still and some have movement. A map was provided indicating which cameras are existing and which are proposed. 2. Put Police access agreement in place to patrol common areas. 3. Provide private security to patrol the parking lot. Close the parking lot during high traffic times. 4. The management company will be made available to review security policies such as no trespass warnings etc. 5. Door rehabilitation - Install storm and sliding door replacements. Install weather stripping and provide dead bolt locks. The variances being considered are the following: 1. Lot size – density 2. Parking Ratio 3. Lighting – fixture height and maximum illumination 4. Signage – Intent is to keep 5 ground levels signs. The UDO only allows one ground sign. 5. Landscaping 6. Variance for numerous buildings on one parcel 7. Setbacks Aaron Reinke, attorney for Security Properties – Mr. Reinke wants to stress that Security Properties have agreed with many of the requests of the City thus far, improvements that will better the property. He said Security Properties is willing to invest fourteen million dollars in the community. Steve Teselle – 701 Fifth Ave., Seattle WA, Mr. Teselle said Security Properties is seeking a Planned Development Designation for University Village and stressed that timing is becoming an issue as the application has been in for several months. Mr. Teselle indicated the petitioners would like to receive a vote from the commission in order to keep them moving forward and able to obtain the needed financing. He said the rezoning is needed in order to obtain financing and so that residents are not displaced in the instance that there is a catastrophic event. Mr. Teselle touched on all seven points for the request for variance again giving Security Property’s plan for each. Mr. Teselle said one of the main outstanding items is the upgrade to the fire alarm systems. Present now in Phase I and II are battery powered smoke detectors in the units as well as in the common areas. In phase III there is a more robust fire alarm system that includes fire panels in each building but it is not a monitored system. At present if one of the alarms is triggered the fire department is not notified. The proposed system is a ten year tamper proof smoke detector system. A pull station will be installed at each entry way to serve a pod of four units. Audio visual alarms would be installed as well. Those will tie into a central fire alarm panel per building. If the pole station or fire alarm panel is triggered the fire station would be notified. In the townhome units without the common entry way a hard wire interconnected system would be installed. Phase three - retrofit to be a monitored system. Chair Welsh asked about the parking being undersubscribed and asked how they presently issue parking permits. Mr. Teselle said currently they give one permit per adult with only two hundred and fifty haven been given out. Polly Kuehl, 2320 Central, Evanston IL - Ms. Kuehl talked about a similar renovation, Buena Vista pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 5 of 11 Apartments and Townhomes in Elgin, originally called The Mill. It was an area that had deteriorated, had high crime and was isolated from a lot of the community services. It had a very poor reputation. In 2003 the ownership changed; it was rehabbed and there was a management change. Seven million in rehab dollars were put into it and it was rebranded with a new name in order to give it a new start. They worked with police, added cameras, allowed police to live on site for a time, added a community services worker on site, implemented new house rules, parking standards and improved the playground and lighting. They wanted to re-establish the property in a positive light. The change has been able to be maintained. Ms. Kuehl emphasized the key to long-term success is how well the property continues to be managed and maintained noting that after twelve years Buena Vista townhomes are in significantly better shape than when they purchased it. Public Comment Tiara Huggins, University Village Tenant’s Association - Ms. Huggins expressed the association is in favor of the proposal of Security Properties noting that Security Properties understands the concerns of equality and growth that University Village faces. She expressed excitement at the prospect of working together toward improvement for University Village through building relationships with service agencies. Tiara said she wants to thank local agencies for coming out to meet with the residents. Tiara said approval of the zoning will help continue the process of building relationships in the community and bringing resources to the residents. The Tenants Association believes Security Properties is the best to help them move forward. Niki Cox – Ms. Cox said she thinks the pros and cons should be weighed expressing her opinion that the purchase by Security Properties, in her opinion, would be a downgrade. Ms. Cox had several questions for the petitioners. Q. Do current owners want to sell the property? A. Bryon Gongaware, Security Properties – At present they are under contract with the current owners. Mr. Frieders said the focus of the meeting should be related to the zoning considerations. The questions regarding the units could be addressed at a tenant’s meeting. Chair Welsh indicated direction to allow the public to speak about their concerns. Q. Where would the money go if the current ownership is improving units? A. Mr. Gongaware said he can’t answer any more than saying they have a wide program focused on improving the interiors of every unit, exteriors. Q. If there is a tornado where would you put my family? A. Mr. Gongare replied Security Properties is not the owner and can’t answer that except to say if a tornado hit, at present, the buildings would not be able to be rebuilt as is. Q. Are willing to put what you’re willing to do in writing. A. Security Properties is working in conjunction with the City to make an executable development agreement to outline all of the items of the plan. The document will be part of the P.U.D. process. Q. Will Security Properties leave the present amenities alone, such as the pool, basketball court, etc. A. Mr. Gongaware said they will add amenities for the greater good. Q. Why do we need a security booth? A. The City said it would be good for the community to have a place for the Police to be after hours and are wanting to encourage police patrol of the property. pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 6 of 11  Q. Will there be a gate? A. There will be a fence to distinguish line between Welsh park and University Village. Valarie Redmund – Ms. Redmund stated that she is in favor of the Security Properties and Evergreen Management proposal because they’ve responded to the City’s requests and have also reached out to the Tenant’s Association. Ms. Redmund said she thinks it’s time for a change. Kevin Hannon – 930 Greenbrier Rd – Mr. Hannon indicated he’s a member of the community and works with the Tenants Association and asked that they approve the proposed zoning. Mr. Hannon said he likes Security Property’s commitment to make the changes that are necessary expressing the community center will be a huge help, allowing them to bring in services to better the lives of the residents. David Gersic – After listening to the presentations wants to encourage approval of the change. Jeff Crane – Northbrook IL – Mr. Crane represents the current owners. Mr. Crane gave the history of the property indicating he was developed by Mr. Crane’s father, Joe Katz and Ralph Michaelson in the 60’s and 70’s. Mr. Crane said the three developed properties that have stayed great partners with DeKalb through the years. Mr. Crane indicated that now ownership is made up of estates of estates who have decided it is time to liquidate causing them to search for a purchaser. He said fifteen proposals were received, contacting nine for a second evaluation. Four final proposals were made to them. Current owners had in depth conversations with the property purchaser and it was clear that Security Properties was the right purchaser as they have done similar rehabs dozens of times around the county. Current ownership reached out to those who have done business with Security Properties and got only good reports. Brooke Lawrence – Ms. Lawrence has been working with the University Tenant’s Association and wants to express that she is in favor of the proposal. Jennifer Komis, 899 Fotis Dr. - Ms. Komis expressed she is in favor of the proposal. She is also working with the Tenant’s Association. She noted the community center is a means to bring services into the village but also to bring others in to connect University Village to the City. Jim Mason, local developer – Mr. Mason said this is a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, not a maintenance meeting. Mr. Mason expressed the city and the Planning and Zoning Commission have a covenant to keep that the City has lived with for thirty years. If the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council waive these rights they will have a hard time telling anyone no in the future. Mr. Mason said he has helped develop these ordinances noting it’s in the best interest of the City to maintain the status quo saying if Security Properties wants to buy it and keep the zoning as it is, go ahead. Mr. Mason expressed his concern over the federal money that would go into this property. Mr. Mason gave his opinion that money should not come from the government saying there is not a need for more government. John McKewn, DeKalb homeowner and rental property owner – Mr. McKewn asked the request be denied saying University Village pays lower property tax and consumes greater services than the rest of DeKalb’s residents indicating University Village pays only 46% of the property tax burden per property tax value compared to other rentals in the area. Mr. McKewn said he doesn’t expect this percentage to increase. He said it would be good if University Village had to pay what other properties pay in property tax. Mr. McKewn said the school district alone is being short changed by pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 7 of 11 approximately $460,000 per year by University Village noting that amount would help to pay down the $110,000,000 bond that hasn’t had anything paid on it yet. Approving this zoning change will not put stimulus money back into the community causing others to continue to carry the load. Will Heinisch, local businessman and one of the founders of DARA and FOCUS DeKalb - Full disclosure met with Tiara. Mr. Heinisch said DARA asked him to reach out to the Tenants Association. He said DARA wants to maintain quality property. Mr. Heinisch noted the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to plan for the future. Mr. Heinisch said he grew up in DeKalb and plans to be in the community for another twenty to thirty years plus. He said the Planning and Zoning Commission may be gone but he and many of the stake holders will still be here. Mr. Heinisch likened University Village to a sick patient that continues to treat symptoms rather than looking at the real problem. Through HUD’s Affirmative Further Fair Housing for Communities the following points will be challenged in the future: 4 fair housing goals for communities 1. Reduce segregation 2. Build on nations increasing racial geographic & economic diversity. Eliminate racial & ethical areas of poverty 3. Reduce disparities in access to important community assets, schools, transit, job centers, etc. 4. Narrow gaps that leave families, people with disabilities and peoples of different races with more severe housing problems. Mr. Heinisch says he hears talk of integrating the village into the community. He noted this area is one of the poorest in DeKalb. Mr. Heinisch said if the proposed plan is approved it will solidify and commit the City to this project for another thirty to forty years but rather if the Commission can still be flexible others may come in and purchase it as is. He gave the history indicating with Phase I there was some subsidy, in Phase 2 and 3 the majority was backed by section 8 and government housing subsidies. If the proposal is approved the property would be 100% subsidized housing. Mr. Heinisch asked the question, where will we be in thirty years? He told the Commission it is their decision to make. Mr. Gongaware wanted to address a few comments – He said that clearly HUD’s policies are important and a necessity to the development in order to preserve affordable housing and to integrate the property back into the community. Mr. Gongaware noted that at present 87% of the property is subsidized. Requirements are for 100% affordable housing but not 100% subsidized housing. He gave the opinion that sometimes maintaining the status quo is not acceptable. Change has to happen. The question is now does that happen? He said this property will be affordable housing for the long term because HUD has restrictions in place to ensure this. Mr. Gongaware asked what is the best plan to implement affordable housing to ensure it is well maintained? Chair Welsh noted his surprise at the length of time residents have lived at this property saying that it was designed as a starting place for people in the community. Hearing that residents have been there for twenty and thirty years surprised him. He asked in what way Security Property’s proposal changes this. Mr. Gongaware replied that their vision is always a long term one. He noted there are current restrictions in place through HUD that are LIPRA agreement which put forced affordability on those units in perpetuity. The financing they bring is low income tax credits to rehab property for the preservation of that property for the long term. Tax credits are delivered over a ten year period but require a minimum of an initial fifteen year compliance period for those tax credits. He said there is an additional fifteen years of regulatory restrictions so in essence, thirty years of affordability pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 8 of 11 restrictions. Niki Cox – Keep in mind that only two of the people who spoke live at University Village. Give UV a chance to change. Kevin Hannon, 930 Greenbrier – Mr. Hannon expressed his doubt about what he heard quoted regarding the tax rate and loss of tax money and thinks it seems over estimated. Mr. Hannon aid he believes new business needs to be invited in. Even though local property owners may come in with great plans Security Properties understands and works with the residents and is willing to address their needs. Mr. Hannon reiterated the fact that the community center is extremely important to the residents of University Village because people are unable to access social services and noted this is a means to bring the social services to them. Mr. Hannon repeated he is in favor of the proposal. Ms. Atherton motioned to extend the meeting for one hour. Mr. Crull seconded the motion and it was approved by voice vote. Tiara Huggins – Ms. Huggins said that she had met with DARA and was given the landlord/tenant handbook but wanted to reiterate that the Tenant Association is in favor of the Security Property proposal. Welsh said he realizes that there are not two competing entities. Jeff Crane, Mr. Crane wants to Mr. Mason’s statement indicating he offered thirty one and an half million dollars for the property and not thirty four as Mr. Mason said previously Jim Mason – Mr. Mason questioned the amount that is being paid for the property and the amount it will take to rehab the property. He mentioned he’d heard the improvements won’t be taxed. Brook Lawrence – Ms. Lawrence stressed that Security Properties is listening to the tenants and commented that the residents lives are the thing that is most important. Close Public Hearing CONSIDERATIONS Ms. Atherton asked how the tamper free smoke alarms work. Fire Chief Hicks – Chief Hicks said in Phase 1 and Phase 2 there will be battery operated smoke detectors with a permanently installed ten year battery. If the alarms go off residents would have to go out into the hallway to pull alarm and the Fire Department would come. In Phase 3 the Fire Department would come because they would be notified automatically. Chief Hicks said this would be a significant upgrade. Chief Hicks noted the majority of fires are cooking fires and said a hood extinguishing system would be installed. Chair Welsh gave a brief history of the property over the last fifty years. He noted when it was first built it was the place people dreamed of living. Local business owners as well as state representatives lived there. He noted he would love to re-invigorate the property again. Welsh said he has lived within eyesight of the property for the last fifty years. Chair Welsh indicated when Phase III came into being, ten years later as Section 8 housing, it was not as stylish and not as desirable. In the eighties the City said there would not be a Phase 4 because the density was so great. Greek Row, at pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 9 of 11 the time, said they needed some greenspace noting there were no parks west of the Kishwaukee River. The Park Board gave $200,000 toward a park. Mayor Bessie lead the cause foregoing the purchase of a fire engine in order to provide greenspace and also went to the Department of Natural Resources and got a $400,0000 grant from the State of Illinois. Chair Welsh commented that Welsh Park has served the whole community very well. Chair Welsh said there’s a history of trying to come to a realization of what the right density is. Over the course of many years the City Council has said no to greater density. There are some whose projects were denied, however the Commission has not required any existing building be demoed in order to comply with density. They were grandfathered in. The Commission has to look at is what is best for the community as a whole. What Security Properties is asking is to be able to rebuild at the current density. Chair Welsh wondered how the Council will handle the next applicant who asks for the same thing if the precedent is set to approve the change Mr. Castro thanked Mr. Heinisch for looking into the future for us. He expressed that he understands Security Properties is investing for the long term and said he understands the need to desegregate but that is not the proposal before us. The proposal is to approve the variances, the first being the change in density. Mr. Castro said he doesn’t have any problem with variances 2-7 but he does have an issue with the first, the density. Mr. Castro asked if there is any way to reduce the density? Chair Welsh said he also understands the necessity of being grandfathered in because of the type of financing. Mr. Gongaware replied that this is not unique to Security Properties but would hold true for any proposed buyer or any individual who would put first lien financing on the property. Mr. Welsh asked if there might possibly be a developer or a bank that might have different requirements. Mr. Gongaware said there are instances such as a cash purchase. Mr. Gongaware spoke to the desegregation but given the LIPRA agreements says it will never be implemented for this property. Mr. Frieders advised the focus remain on the zoning petition before the Commission and avoid the discussions of desegregation. Chair Welsh said this is a major project in DeKalb and the proposal has the potential to make DeKalb a better place. He expressed that it’s an important decision. Ms. Atherton says she sympathizes with both sides and expressed that the Commission is not taking this lightly. She said improvement is needed in that area but also sees the other side. Chair Welsh asked the petitioners if there is any way they can make that area less dense. Mr. Gongaware said they have evaluated this from the beginning understanding that density is a hot topic but doesn’t see any way to change it. He said the reality is that this project is right next to one of the City’s biggest assets, Northern Illinois University, indicating the property needs improvement. He expressed hope there would be creative thinking on the part of the Commission. Chair Welsh asked that Security Properties go back to the financer to see if there is another way. Mr. Gongaware expressed Security Properties have spent endless hours on this already and acknowledged that it takes a dedicated effort on the part of all. The business plan that they’ve put forth already is reflective of that effort and creativity. Mr. Gongaware said he is willing, off-line, to discuss any possibility for other ideas but thinks they’ve come up with the best plan already. Chair Welsh replied that the City will honor the agreement that was in place years ago and allow the current density but to allow it to be rebuilt as is would set a precedent that the City may not want to set. Mr. Gongaware pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 10 of 11 said the reality is in the case of catastrophic loss families would be without a home. Ms. Atherton asked about adding to the parking in the future. Is there the ability to add to the parking if need be? Mr. Frieders compared it to University Plaza with a plan for parking in the future indicating the result of doing so would be a significant decrease in greenspace on the property but the Commission could make the request if so desired. Mr. Gongaware replied if the increase in parking were required every bit of greenspace would be lost. Mr. Welsh indicated the major hurdle for the proposal is the first variance request of density. Mr. Castro wanted to repeat the thought this is a difficult decision because the proposal comes with a considerable improvement to the property, which is difficult to say no to. On the flip side the City would be setting a precedent they may not want to set. Chair Welsh indicated the only other time he’s voted to allow less parking was with University Plaza but the up side of that project was that density was significantly decreased. University Village’s proposal has both density and parking that are issues. Mr. Gongaware said the need of Security Properties is to be able to rebuild at the current density expressing Security Properties can live with the legal non-conforming use if the City is willing to put in writing that they can rebuild at the current density if there was a catastrophic loss. Mr. Gongaware said insurance will not cover that difference. Mr. Frieders said the City has the ability to identify a legal non-conforming use and to define when that use ends and when the property needs to be made to conform to current zoning. The petitioner’s proposal for rezoning is the narrowest way to allow the petition to move forward but to allow a legal non-conforming use to continue after a catastrophic loss would codify any other similar situations into perpetuity. Ms. Atherton moved to continue this individual consideration to the April 29th Planning and Zoning meeting. Mr. Ruehling seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote. REPORTS/ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Mr. Hiland advised of the upcoming Commission meeting on April 22 that will include a continuation on behalf of Cave Enterprises for a special use permit for the Burger King Restaurant remodel at 913 West Lincoln Hwy. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Mr. Crull to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Atherton and passed by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda Hart, Recorder Administrative Assistant pzc051-15 april 15 minutes.docx Page 11 of 11