Planning & Zoning Commission

AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission October 12, 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. SEPTEMBER 28, MEETING 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. 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. 3. Consideration of 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. F. NEW BUSINESS G. CONSIDERATIONS H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J. ADJOURNMENT PZC076-16 ITEM D1  DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 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 6:00p.m. A. ROLL CALL Derek Hiland called the roll. The following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Chair Christina Atherton, David Castro, and Matthew Crull. Members absent at roll call were: Deborah Nier and Jerry Wright. Also present from the City of DeKalb were: Principal Planner Jo Ellen Charlton, Long Range Planner Derek Hiland, and Administrative Assistant Natalie Nelson. A quorum of the Commission was not present at 6:00p.m. Derek Hiland requested a recess for ten minutes to contact absent Commissioners. Chair Atherton declared a recess until 6:10p.m. Commissioner Jerry Wright arrived at 6:10p.m. Chair Atherton reopened the meeting at 6:11p.m. Derek Hiland called the roll again. The following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Chair Christina Atherton, David Castro, Matthew Crull, and Jerry Wright. A quorum was present. B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Additions or Deletions) Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the agenda for September 28, 2016. M. Crull motioned to approve the agenda, J. Wright 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 Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 2 of 19 Chair Atherton requested a motion to approve the minutes for September 14, 2016. D. Castro motioned to approve the minutes, M. Crull seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by voice vote. E. OLD BUSINESS None. F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing on a request by on a proposal by Adam Del Muro on behalf of William Halverson for a Special Use Permit for property at 1031 W. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb to allow for the operation of a vehicle repair and service facility. Principal Planner Jo Ellen Charlton provided comments from the City. She introduced the applicant, Adam Del Muro, who is planning to purchase the Illini Tire business, located at the northeast corner Lincoln Highway and Annie Glidden Road. Mr. Del Muro plans to continue the business of a vehicle service facility, which according to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), is a special use. J. Charlton reported that City staff searched City records to determine when the vehicle service facility was granted a Special Use Permit. City staff found no documents related to this, so they are assuming it was approved sometime in the past, as there is record of the tire store opening at that location, which was a permitted use. J. Charlton explained that whenever there is a turnover in use or ownership or if a property is vacant for a period, the City reviews the zoning ordinance to ensure compliance. J. Charlton explained that since there is an existing business on the property with nonconforming elements, the City looks at the zoning regulations differently than if the property were vacant. She said that the City cannot expect the new owners of the business to fix all of the issues on the property when the current business has been existing for some time. The City holds a Development Review Team meeting with the planners, engineers, and City administrators to evaluate the project and prioritize the conditions for approval. Fire and Police Department representatives objected to the way vehicles from the business currently drive from the west side of the building southward, turning around on the southwest corner of the pavement, and into the sidewalk area. J. Charlton stated that the current business has been in this location for a long time. The State of Illinois acquired some of the business’ property to add turn lanes to from Lincoln Highway, and the business lost some of its property. Currently, there are only 9 feet and 6 inches between the property line at the southwest corner and the angled part of building at the narrowest point. At the site, there are currently tire marks on the public sidewalk made by vehicles from the business. In addition, the bumpers of parked vehicles regularly overhang the sidewalk because there is no barrier to prevent that. The use of the public sidewalk and the possibility of conflict  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 3 of 19 between pedestrians or bicyclists and vehicle traffic create a potential liability for the City. The design approved must not create liability for the City. J. Charlton stated that City staff spoke to the applicant, recommending that he locate the property lines to see if there was any way to continue to allow the current method of vehicle movement, which is important to the applicant. She provided an overview of the problems with requiring the garage vehicles to exit the facility onto the road:  Vehicles from the garage bays turning left onto southbound Annie Glidden Road must wait for the queued up vehicles in the left turn lane at nearly every light cycle. Vehicles from the garage would need to wait for the left-turn traffic to clear, wait for the left-turn light, and turn onto Lincoln Highway.  Vehicles from the garage bays turning right onto northbound Annie Glidden Road would have to drive a long way to get back to the garage. Charlton continued by stating there is no quick way to get vehicles from the west side of the building to the east side of the building. The pass-through inside the garage cannot be used for vehicle movement as service operations are set up there. She stated that the City review team discussed how to prevent or restrict the garage vehicle movement or how to make the garage vehicle movement safer. City staff suggested installing curbs along the property line starting at the west side of the building. Mr. Del Muro discovered that this option to be too expensive for his new business at this time. J. Carlton stated that Mr. Del Muro understood that if he did not install curbs, that the City may impose restrictions. Some kind of physical barrier is necessary between the business property and the public sidewalk. She also noted that Mr. Del Muro would be presenting later vehicle turn movements, which were not part of the staff report. City staff is proposing installing planters or bollards in locations that would force the business to move vehicles using the road, which is not the ideal situation, but would ensure safety of pedestrians. J. Charlton reported that she has spoken to the City attorney about Special Uses and the standards listed in the UDO. The Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with making findings with regard to those standards, as was done in the past. The City attorney advised a more formal accounting of each standard in the UDO requested through a Special Use Permit be addressed. The suggested staff findings for each standard appear in the staff report for consideration by the Commission. She instructed the Commission members to read the staff report’s findings carefully to ensure they are in agreement. Commission members’ assessment of the findings may affect the motion, as suggested by City staff. Commission members are allowed to suggest changes to the findings, which can be recorded in the minutes, and which may affect the motion, and the letter that the Commission presents to City Council. City staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. J. Charlton provided a summary of the conditions, including installation of planters or Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 4 of 19 bollards and wheel stops at the top of the parking spaces and restriping of the handicapped accessible parking spaces in the lot on the east side of the building to conform with the Illinois accessibility standards. City staff also considered the impact of the business on surrounding properties and recommended that parking of vehicles in disrepair at the site be limited to 24 hours, all repair work occur inside the facility, and all storage of materials be inside the facility. Chair Atherton opened the public hearing at 6:25p.m. and asked the applicant to approach the podium. Adam Del Muro, 701 N. Third Street, Elburn, IL 60119, the contract purchaser of Illini Tire spoke before the Commission. He presented reasons why he should be granted the Special Use Permit, so he may continue providing tire and vehicle repair. He also stated he would present evidence that the current turn radius is sufficient at the southeast corner of the property. He objected to the City staff’s conditions. He said it would create scenario of driver frustration and possible accidents if vehicles from his business were required to use the left-turn lane on southbound Annie Glidden Road, which would happen several times a day. He stated that the prohibiting the current method of moving vehicles at the business would negatively affect the business and possibly put it out of business. He also asked the Commission to consider safety for drivers on Annie Glidden Road. Mr. Del Muro stated that he plans to purchase Illini Tire and hopes to run it with his wife, Michelle. He provided a recounting of his childhood experiences in his father’s shop, his desire to learn about cars, and his experience and education in the field of automobile service. He said that the services currently provided at Illini Tire have always been provided and should be allowed to continue. He stated that the full- service shop provides many types of repairs, except body work and collision repair. He emphasized that continuing to provide these services is important to vehicle safety and the convenience of people who are employed nearby. He plans to continue to build relationships with surrounding businesses by encouraging his customers to walk over to them while they wait for services that take longer than 30 minutes. These business relationships lead to an increase in business values and tax dollars, which benefits the City. Mr. Del Muro claimed that preventing his business to continue its current movement of vehicles around the corner would increase safety hazards on the road. He provided pictures to the members of the Commission and City staff, including photos and the property’s Plat of Survey, which he said the City requested he purchase at a cost of $800. He pointed out that the Plat of Survey was not part of the staff report. The photos provided were taken on Saturday, September 24, 2016 between 1:37pm and 1:42pm, shortly before a 2:30pm NIU Huskies game nearby, resulting in heightened traffic at the corner. He stated that he tried to back up on to Annie Glidden Road at that time, and he found it very difficult; he found that he had to proceed to Hillcrest in order to turn around.  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 5 of 19 Mr. Del Muro described the images in the pictures. The first collage depicted his personal truck, cones set out at the property line on the hash marks placed by the surveyors, and the proximity to the business’ building. He said he did not move his truck between any of the pictures, and he was able to get out of his driver-side door. He estimated two to three feet allowance between his truck and the building. In the second collage are images depicting the placement of cones, which he would replace every day to prevent anyone from driving over the sidewalk. He insisted that when he became in charge of the business, it would be company policy not to drive over the sidewalk and he would ensure that the survey hash marks would always be visible. The item he presented was the survey, which shows the perimeters of the property. He stated that the City stated he would need a minimum of nine feet between the building and the sidewalk, and there are six inches more than required. He also provided the measurements of the parking spaces. Mr. Del Muro requested that that photos on pages 2, 3, 5, and 6 be removed from the staff report when the Commission deliberates his case. He then returned to discussion of the photographs he provided to call attention to potential improvement he plans to make to the property, once he has the funds, which are in line with the City’s 2025 plan to provide an urban feel. He hopes to improve the curb appeal and attract more customers. Then, Mr. Del Muro proceeded to detail his objections to the photographs in the staff report:  The image on page 2 contains inaccurate borders drawn around the property, which overlap neighboring property, the building, and the road.  The image on page 3 is from a survey performed in the 1980s that, he was told, was not accurately drawn as it also overlaps neighboring properties and cuts through his building. He asked that something more accurate replace this image.  The image on page 5 shows a pedestrian walking on Illini Tire property and a measuring tape with one end not visible and the other end not placed on a any landmark. He asserted that the hash mark, which was visible, should have been used as a landmark for accurate measuring. He suggested that City staff return to the site and take another accurate photo.  The image on page 6 shows proposed bollards, but they are not accurately placed on the property line, which does not go over the building. Mr. Del Muro stated he submitted a FOIA request for police reports for the property in question and West Lincoln Highway, including accidents at the intersection at Annie Glidden Road. He received documents from the past three years to the present. He thanked Police Commander Leverton and Emily Getzelman at the Police Department who were very helpful to him. He found there was only one report on the property in question, which was a well-being check on November 5, 2015 at Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 6 of 19 7:41am. This incident addressed intoxicated individuals, neither were employees of Illini. He also found that there were eight car accidents at the intersection during the same period; he provided the date of each accident. He concluded that if the City denied his business’ access to turn around vehicles at the front of the building, the additional cars on Annie Glidden Road would, according to DeKalb Police Department statistics, likely increase the number of accidents, conservatively, to one additional accident per month. He reported that the current business owner reports that approximately 60% of business travels through the area in question. The cost of insurance would be more than his business could handle. Mr. Del Muro stated that he discussed the corner with his attorney, who suggested that curbs, bollards, and planters may be fall or trip hazards for pedestrians who are not paying attention. Snow removal would be made more difficult, and snow would pile up along the curb. He also stated that the current corner’s construction looks clean as it is. Mr. Del Muro responded to each condition recommended in the staff report.  He objected to the condition of installing bollards or planters to prevent the business from moving vehicles around the corner of the building. He claimed this would negatively affect his business and pose safety hazards for drivers and pedestrians. The City’s recommendation for vehicles to exit the facility by backing out into the turn lane on Annie Glidden Road will cause accidents, especially for drivers who are unfamiliar with the area. The addition of bollards or planters may cause visibility issues. He offered a safer alternative for employees to drive customers’ cars north on Annie Glidden, turn around, return on southbound on Annie Glidden, and use the left-turn lane to re-enter from eastbound on West Lincoln Highway. He noted that Jiffy Lube is configured differently to allow for vehicles to pull straight through, but this cannot be accomplished on the property in question.  He agreed with the condition that wheel stops should be placed at the top of each parking spot along the sidewalk.  He agreed with the condition that the lot should be restriped and signage should be updated in accordance with accessibility standards.  He objected to condition of a 24-hour limit on parking inoperable vehicles outside the building. He stated he always tries to perform repairs as soon as possible, but sometimes a part must be ordered and repairs are delayed. In the meantime, they cannot fit into the building while other vehicles are being serviced. He stated that these are rare occasions but occur in reality.  He objected to the condition that all work must performed inside the structure. He provided examples of when repairs must take place outside the building, including replacing a dead battery on a large car and replacing tires on a towed car that cannot be driven. He assured the Commission and City staff that all repairs that can be performed inside will be.  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 7 of 19  He agreed to the condition that materials like tools, lifts, and trailers must be stored inside the facility. In conclusion, Mr. Del Muro stated he plans to continue providing quality service in a safe manner, just as the business has done for the past 40 years. He stated he is willing to reach a compromise with the City. He asked for the Commission to refer to the City’s Core Values when deliberating this matter: Integrity, Professionalism, Excellence, Collaboration, and Accountability. At 6:50 p.m., Chair Atherton invited member of the audience to speak. Bill Finucane of 305 River, 2nd Ward Alderman approached the podium. He stated that he was the former fleet manager at NIU. He supported Mr. Del Muro’s assertion that there may be a delay for obtaining a part from a warehouse to repair a vehicle. He suggested a 72- or 96-hour limit. He reminded that the reason the building is so close to the side of the road is because the State of Illinois took some of its land to widen the road, and that should affect deliberations. Chair Atherton invited the City and Commission to speak. Jo Ellen Charlton praised Adam Del Muro for his presentation, especially his inclusion of the City’s Core Values. She confirmed that the Plat of Survey was required for the application and that most of the content of the staff report refer to the information found on the Plat, including the setback measurement of 9 ½ feet. She said that the photos in the staff report were for illustrated purposes, for showing the location of the property and the County Assessor’s map is used for tax purposes only and may not accurately reflect the location of the property lines. J. Charlton stated that the Plat is now part of the record. She indicated that the dashed lines on the Plat denote the location of the overhang canopy on the building. This can also be seen in Mr. Del Muro’s photo of his parked truck, a taller mid-sized truck. She reported that when the applicant informed the City that installation of curbs would not be an option, she informed him that the City would seek to limit vehicle movements around the corner. While turning templates by an engineer have not been requested, Mr. Del Muro’s photos, presented for the first time to Staff, are helpful for City staff and the Commission to see the space between the property line and the building. She informed the Commission that they may request City staff to obtain additional documentation of turn motions. The photos presented do not show if the vehicle’s bumper overhung the property line as it turned. If moving from the northwest side of the building southward parallel to Annie Glidden Road, turning left may cause a bumper overhang. J. Charlton also noted that bollards and planters are permanent and preferable to cones as they cannot be moved or forgotten one day. The type and placement of any barriers would determine whether turning in that location could continue. She agreed with Mr. Del Muro that snow management and tripping hazards are valid points. She also agreed that while the limited space between the building and the property line is due to the road widening, all representatives from City staff agreed Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 8 of 19 that most important issue with this proposal is the safety of pedestrians walking in the area. She provided the Commission with the options available to them: forward a recommendation to City Council, or request additional information and City staff work before making a recommendation, and continuing the item. Chair Atherton invited comments and questions from the Commissioners. J. Wright asked why restriping of the parking spaces was necessary. J. Charlton responded that there are parking spaces adjacent to and perpendicular to the east side of the building and along the east property line. If entering from Lincoln Highway, the handicapped accessible spots are to the left, near the front of the building. Currently, those spaces do not comply with the Illinois Accessibility in terms of color, signage, and possibly dimensions. Jim Anderson, current owner of Illini Tire and resident of 1147 Glidden Avenue in DeKalb, approached the podium to speak. He spoke about the striping of the parking spaces. He stated that his shop has been at the current location for 40 years and used to perform work on trucks and big tractors. He said that many years ago, when the shopping center was built next door, drainage became an issue. There is only one drain near Lincoln Highway, and it gets clogged with dirt, weeds, and grass and the area floods for a day or so. When the current striping was placed, it rained soon afterwards and the water and mud washed away the marks. D. Castro asked about the new photos and perspectives presented by Mr. Del Muro at the meeting. He asked City staff if further review and additional time would be beneficial or change the City’s recommendation. J. Charlton responded that City staff has visited the site after the survey was completed and marked. She stated that the cones in the photos appear to be accurately placed, but she is concerned with the actual vehicle movements since the photos show the truck after the movement has already started. It is hard to tell if there would be any encroachment upon the cone or property line. D. Hiland estimated about three feet separate the side of the truck and the cones in the photos. He stated that in order to verify if the movement would work, we would have to see it work by running a vehicle through it. D. Castro confirmed that only employees would drive around the corner, not customers. From the audience, Mr. Del Muro stated he would develop a policy to allow only employees to move vehicles around the corner with caution, not customers. D. Castro said he wanted to put aside the details and focus on the fact that State of Illinois placed this burden on the current and future property owners. He suggested that everyone get more creative to make this happen for everyone’s benefit. He stated that he hates to see sidewalks blocked and would be the first person to call out a violator. He asked again if more time would affect the City staff’s recommendations and allow for more creative problem solving. J. Charlton responded that more time would allow for further conversations with the applicant about barrier methods. It would also allow City staff the opportunity to  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 9 of 19 witness vehicle movement around the corner. She said that she understood that delaying the matter may affect the applicant financially. Mr. Del Muro responded that the City’s Core Values should be considered. He asserted he is willing to collaborate with the City to develop a solution. He pointed out that there is space between the property line and the sidewalk. He suggested future improvements to the property to make the corner more inviting, including installation of an attractive wood “Welcome to Huskie Country” sign. Chair Atherton asked if the parking spots along the curve will continue to be used or if they may be removed. Mr. Del Muro responded that would like to retain them, but he might be willing to reconfigure the parking. He reported that the business has only 10 parking spots, so losing any may be difficult. He’d like to eventually hire seven employees, who would use the majority of the parking spaces. He suggested that maybe those spots along the curve could be where employees only park cars after work is finished. He would ensure the employees are trained to property maneuver and park cars in this area. Chair Atherton stated that she agreed with D. Castro and voiced her support for local businesses and their importance in the community. She stated she also did not want to get stuck in the details. She said the property could be a good focal point for the area and help grow the surrounding area. Chair Atherton invited further questions for Mr. Del Muro. Then she asked if members from the audience had comments. Jim Anderson approached the podium. He explained that currently only mid- to small-size vehicles are taken around the corner on the west side of the building because they are aware of the space for years. Smaller vehicles are worked in one area of the facility and larger vehicles in another. Employees that currently move cars around the corner are directed to stop and look through the window glass before proceeding. He emphasized that no accident has ever occurred on the property when a vehicle was turning the corner around the building. Chair Atherton asked for additional comments. Seeing and hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 7:13pm. Chair Atherton asked the Commissioners how they would like to proceed. She opined that the photos with the cones marking the property line helped her envision the property, and the fire hydrant location helped to put it in perspective. She stated she supported continuing this item so that City staff had time gather additional information about turning vehicles. She praised Mr. Del Muro’s presentation and thanked him for his work. J. Wright said he believed that the business owner and City staff appear to be close to reaching an agreement. He suggested consider recommending a barrier that is Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 10 of 19 larger than a cone but smaller than a bollard. He also supported increasing the time limit on inoperable vehicle storage to 72-96 hours is more feasible. Performing some work outside of the structure might also be a point of flexibility. J. Charlton clarified that the Commission may motion to modify the conditions. D. Castro motioned to continue this item to the next meeting on October 12, 2016. J. Wright seconded the motion. Chair Atherton called for a discussion. Mr. Del Muro approached the podium and stated that his wife is expecting a baby scheduled to be delivered on October 14, 2016, and he was planning to take a week off. He hoped to be present at the October 12th meeting. Chair Atherton said that City staff would need to meet with the applicant before that date. She also reiterated that the turning radius is the main reason for the continuance. D. Castro inserted that barrier options should be discussed between the applicant and City staff before the next meeting. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: M. Crull, C. Atherton, D. Castro, J. Wright. Nay: none. The motion passed 4-0. 2. Public Hearing on a City-initiated text amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Article 5 of Chapter 23 of the Municipal Code to define the acreage by which “automobile, truck and recreational sales and rental” will be allowed as a permitted use in Section 5.08.02 and allowed as a special use in Section 5.08.03, and any related amendments deemed necessary pursuant to public hearing and review. Chair Atherton asked for comments from City staff. J. Charlton reported that this request came in in two parts: the current item and the item after, which is what started the consideration. Signage is regulated by Article 13 in the UDO, which specifically calls out that signage variations are not allowed except as part of a Special Use or Planned Development. As a result, any permitted use cannot request a sign variation. Brian Bemis Toyota requested a new digital free- standing sign, and the initial request was denied. City staff advised them that the only avenue was to modify their permitted use and for their business to become a Special Use. J. Charlton indicated that normally, an individual request to modify permitted uses would be considered only if it could be applicable to other situations. City staff investigated other DeKalb car dealerships in general and discovered that large dealerships like Brian Bemis and Brad Manning Ford are typically located on lots larger than 3 acres. When they are selling a new product, they have very specific sign code needs to be competitive with other locations in other communities. J. Charlton directed the Commission to page two of the staff report. There are two sections to the amendment that would be required. Currently car dealerships are permitted uses in General Commercial (GC) zoning districts. The language in the amendment would need to be modified to include language that states something like “except for car dealerships on property greater than three acres  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 11 of 19 that derive the majority of their annual sales from new vehicles” as a Special Use. J. Charlton instructed the Commission that approval of this text amendment would affect only Brian Bemis and Brad Manning dealerships at this time. Future dealerships on lots of three acres or greater would be Special Uses. J. Charlton reported that City staff determined that there is no property in a GC district greater than 3 acres where a car dealership sells primarily new cars. J. Charlton reported that two property owner comment were sent to the City, both in support of the requested action. One was from the Kishwaukee Country Club, the other was from Steve Irving who owns a business at 1826 Sycamore Road. A sample motion appears on page three of the staff report, which provides the language suggested. Chair Atherton asked for questions from the Commission. D. Castro asked for clarification that this item was motivated by the following item. J. Charlton confirmed that was correct. He also asked for clarification that this item is in response to a single petition, but also affects the Manning dealership on South Fourth Street near Route 88. J. Charlton confirmed that was correct. He asked if a dealership that sells primarily new cars were to open on Lincoln Highway near campus, would be allowed to install a similar sign. J. Charlton responded that was correct. J. Charlton commented that it would be a good problem to have, new dealerships. M. Crull commented property with more than three open acres is rare. J. Charlton agreed. Chair Atherton reminded the Commission that the action taken on this item affects the next item. She asked for a motion. M. Crull motioned to recommendation to approve the text amendment and read aloud from the staff report: Based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the following text amendments: A. To amend 5.08.02.5 of the UDO by adding the underscored text to the section: 5. Automobile, truck and recreational vehicle sales and rental, except for automobile sales on property greater than three (3) acres that derive a majority of their annual sales from new vehicles (See Section 5.08.03.4) Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 12 of 19 B. To insert the following use as a special use in 5.08.03.4 and renumber remaining special uses 4. “Automobile sales on property greater than three (3) acres that derive a majority of their annual sales from new vehicles. J. Wright seconded the motion. J. Charlton reminded Chair Atherton to close the public hearing. She closed the public hearing at 7:29pm. Chair Atherton repeated the motion was made by M. Crull and seconded by J. Wright. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: D. Castro, M. Crull, J. Wright, C. Atherton. Nay: none. The motion passed 4-0. 3. Public Hearing on a proposal by Amy Bemis and Property Owner Renee Bemis for a special use for property at 1890 Sycamore Road to allow an existing permitted “automobile, truck and recreation vehicle sales and rental” business to operate as a special use, and authorization pursuant to 13.02.06 to allow and regulate a monument sign that includes digital display, that otherwise complies with the height and area calculations of the UDO. Chair Atherton asked for comments from City staff. J. Charlton explained that this item requests authorization for a Special Use and through the Special Use, obtain authorization to install a sign that does not conform to the UDO. The property in question is located on Sycamore Road. The proposed new sign would be placed on the north side of the existing driveway; the current sign is located on the south side of the existing driveway. She directed the Commission to the staff report exhibit 2, which shows that the digital sign will be incorporated into the monument sign design. The sign area measures 50.18 square feet, which is just over the size allowed in the code. The digital display is roughly 32 square feet. The code requires the base of the sign to be no less than 4 feet from grade, but the proposed sign is only 3 feet 3 inches from grade, 9 inches less than required. These small exceptions to the code can be authorized as part of the Special Use Permit approval. J. Charlton explained that authorization of digital signs must be carefully considered and slowly accepted. She reported that there are a few in DeKalb but they are for service organizations, not commercial enterprises. She acknowledged that City staff is very aware of the history of these kinds of sign in DeKalb. DeKalb has set prudent limits on digital signs. She advised the Commission permitting a digital sign is easier than trying to remove them. City staff is comfortable with allowing a reasonably sized digital sign on a large car dealership lot. J. Charlton stated that the applicant is not requesting an unreasonable exception to the code. However, she advised the Commission to put in place operational conditions, including prohibiting flashing, scrolling, twirling, or fading, and regulating dwell time and transitions, among other listed in the staff report. The staff report addresses each of the Special Use standards  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 13 of 19 and why they are reasonable. The sample motion that follows the staff report includes each of these standards as well. Conditions were added to the exhibit of the sign: which side the sign would be placed, that the old sign must be removed, and that no other free standing or monument signs will be placed on the property without City approval. Chair Atherton recalled that the last digital sign approved was for First Midwest Bank near First Street and Lincoln Highway. D. Hiland confirmed this to be true and that it happened in 2012. Chair Atherton recalled an extensive discussion of regulations and concerns at that time since it was to be placed in a high-traffic area. She advised the Commission to be aware that Sycamore Road is also a high-traffic area, and dwell time should be regulated. She also reminded the Commission that the decision tonight would set a precedent. Chair Atherton asked for comments, questions, and concerns from the Commission. D. Castro reiterated that City staff suggested placing conditions on the sign, including length of dwell time and transitions. He asked if light intensity was also a condition. D. Hiland indicated that it was. D. Castro asked if he was driving a car, exiting the parking lot but not yet on the sidewalk, turning right if the view to the right is obscured at all by this sign and if bicyclists and pedestrians can be seen. D. Hiland stated that the sign regulations in the UDO consider vehicle movements. He confirmed that the setback of the sign in question conforms with the UDO and the view should not be obscured. D. Hiland explained to the Commission that they may recommend additional setback distance beyond what the Code requires if safety is a concern. Chair Atherton asked how the size of the new sign would compare to the old sign. D. Hiland responded that current sign is nonconforming, and guessed a measurement of about 18 feet tall and 5 to 6 feet wide. He reported that the new sign’s dimensions are closer to conformity to the UDO, and the design of the new sign includes a support column with skirting around the base. He confirmed that the base measures 3 feet 3 inches tall, and the sign face is an additional 6 feet 9 inches tall. The digital portion of the sign is 32 inches in area, measuring 8 feet wide by 4 feet tall. D. Castro emphasized that the view drivers from beside the sign cannot compromise the safety of individuals on the sidewalk. He asked for the distance between the westernmost edge of the monument sign to the edge of the sidewalk. J. Charlton stated that she did not have a plat to confirm the location of the current sign and proposed new sign. Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 14 of 19 Due to technical difficulties with the large monitor, she approached the dais with a tablet to display the aerial view of the property to the Commissioners. She pointed out the sidewalk location, overhead power lines, the right-of-way, the location of the existing sign, and the retention area. D. Castro asked if the new sign would line up with the existing sign. J. Carlton confirmed this, as the existing sign is taller, and likely set back farther than 18 inches. She stated she did not believe visibility would be an issue for drivers. D. Hiland successfully displayed the aerial map on the large monitor and pointed out the blue parcel lines, which are typically on the inside of the sidewalk, as they appear on the displayed map. He confirmed that the outermost edge of the proposed sign, which will be perpendicular to the roadway, must be at least 18 inches from the parcel line. He stated that if the average 16-foot car would not likely cover 18 inches before crossing over the sidewalk until it was ready to enter the roadway. He reminded the Commission that they may place additional conditions and recommendations on approval of the proposed sign location. J. Charlton reminded the Commission that there is a provision in the sign ordinance regarding overhead powerline proximity to a sign. She suggested that the Commission consider adding a condition to their motion that no portion of the sign may be directly under the powerlines, and remove the standard 18 inches setback from the property line. Chair Atherton asked for clarification that the proposed sign will be perpendicular to the road, as is the existing sign. City staff confirmed it is perpendicular and double-faced, like the existing sign. She also asked for clarification of existing sign width. D. Hiland estimated 5 to 6 feet wide, but the actual dimensions are available at this time. Seeing and hearing no further discussion, Chair Atherton read for the record the five conditions of approval proposed in the staff memo: Standards for Special Use and Findings 1. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. Except as authorized by a previously approved site plan, and as requested as part of this special use request, the proposed special use complies with all provisions of the GC zoning District. 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.  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 15 of 19 The granting of the special use for the business will have no detrimental impact on the value of other property in the neighborhood given that the use has been in operation successfully over the years, and is in fact currently expanding. The addition of the digital sign is consistent in size and will be regulated with conditions to ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on surrounding properties. 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 (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 granting of the special use for this business will not dominate the neighborhood. Although the sign may make the sign more visible or noticeable, it is small in height when compared to the existing sign. Additionally, a condition is recommended that requires adequate landscaping surrounding the base of the sign prior to the permit being issued for the sign. 4. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The site is already provided with adequate utilities, drainage and other public services. 5. 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 use of a car dealership in along this commercial corridor is consistent with good planning practice, will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare, and will not negatively impact the value of surrounding properties. The use has existed harmoniously with surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 16 of 19 businesses in the corridor for several years. The proposed monument sign that incorporates digital technology is consistent in size with surrounding commercial businesses, and will include operational conditions that are intended to minimize distractions to motorists. Chair Atherton also stated that additional recommended conditions to the lighting of the digital portion of the sign and manner in which the text changes. Chair Atherton requested a motion for how to proceed with this matter and recommended addressing the two items in the City staff’s sample motion separately. D. Castro asked if item 1G in the sample motion can be revised to reflect the language regarding powerline proximity to the sign. J. Charlton replied that the text be modified when reading the motion to remove the regulation for sign placement 18-inches from the property line and replace that text with “no portion of the sign structure may be located beneath the existing powerlines.” M. Crull motioned to approve the following items in the sample motion: 1A-1F as presented, 1G revised to remove “No portion of the sign structure may be closer than 18 inches from the front property line” and replace with “No portion of the sign structure shall be erected under existing power lines”, and 1H as presented. J. Wright seconded the motion. Chair Atherton asked for a discussion. D. Castro asked for clarification of the term “nits” in item H. D. Hiland explained it is a measurement of light emittance and intensity, or brightness. J. Charlton confirmed that it is a term used in the City’s code. A roll call vote was taken. Aye: J. Wright, D. Castro, M. Crull, and Chair Atherton. Nay: none. The motion passed 4-0. Chair Atherton asked if item 2 in the sample motion required a motion to approve. J. Charlton replied that the Commission may just provide direction to staff to forward the recommendation as stated. Chair Atherton stated that the Commission recommends that action. Chair Atherton closed the public hearing at 8:00p.m. G. CONSIDERATIONS 1. Policy Discussion on potential Airbnb regulations within the UDO. D. Hiland provided comments from the City. He stated that Airbnb short-term rentals are becoming popular in DeKalb. He reported that at one time, the Airbnb website listed seven available locations in DeKalb. The Airbnb website was  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 17 of 19 displayed on the large monitor. D. Hiland explained that Airbnb is a venue for arranging short-term rentals of privately owned property either by persons known to the owner or not known. D. Hiland explained the City defines in the code what constitutes a hotel and motel, which are defined as having received remuneration for five or more rooms that are rented to individuals over a period of time. In the past, the City approved one bed-and-breakfast as a special use, and it is a business run much like a hotel or motel. D. Hiland demonstrated on the large monitor how to use the Airbnb website to search for and reserve a room, a suite, or even a whole house. This is an attractive option for many types of people, including vacationers looking to save money and avoid paying broker fees and millennials who are looking for short- term rentals. He asked the Commission to consider if the City should seek to regulate Airbnb rentals like hotels and motels or like bed-and-breakfast businesses. He asked if registration should be required by the City, which zoning districts would allow Airbnb rentals, and if some of these rental spaces constitute separate dwelling units. He reported that members of the community have asked for the City to address these rentals, and he asked for feedback and guidance from the Commission on how to proceed and if developing policies is necessary. Chair Atherton asked if the tax status for a hotel and an airbnb are the same. D. Hiland responded that in some communities they are taxed differently, but in DeKalb they are not. He reported that Chicago and Cook County have developed specific policies for airbnbs. Some communities require registration. Some communities do not collect any taxes, some collect the taxes at reservation, and some collect the taxes at checkout. D. Hiland indicated that regulations and policies are all over the board regarding this emerging lodging option. Chair Atherton related her experience using the Airbnb site to plan for her recent vacation and found that different locations in the same building or condo complex can charge different taxes, housekeeping fees, and other service charges. D. Hiland stated he believed that property owners can set up various fees on the Airbnb website by owners, and ultimately Airbnb receives a portion of the booking. They can also list their amenities and post pictures. If the City desired registration the one issue D. Hiland pointed out was that the photos on Airbnb are often only interior shots, so the City or renters do not know where exactly the address is located until they reserve the space. The City could try to determine the addresses, but it would be difficult with the information on the website. J. Wright asked if City staff has looked at comparable communities to see what they have done. D. Hiland compared this issue with how the City has addressed medical cannabis regulations. He found that few communities currently regulate Airbnb rentals. He asked if having seven properties listed is enough to trigger the City to research how to regulate the business or if the City should wait and watch what other nearby comparable communities decide to do and address this issue in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 18 of 19 M. Crull said he did not believe the low density of these rentals warranted regulation yet. He said that there are communities larger than DeKalb, like Milwaukee which he recently visited, that do not seem to have obvious regulations. He recommended waiting to see how another comparable community addresses regulations. D. Castro suggested that the Commission consider the City’s Crime Free Division’s responsibility for ensuring safe quality rentals. He suggested that City staff discuss this issue with the director of the Crime Free Division, who have more direct contact with landlords. D. Hiland agreed this was a good idea. D. Castro stated that he understood that different challenges are presented with a typical one-year rental and a three-day rental. He also said that in the news he has heard of situations where people rent Airbnb homes for the purpose of having a party. J. Charlton reported that in another community in which she worked previously people arranged an Airbnb rental of a commercial business space for the same purpose. D. Hiland summarized the statements from the Commission members regarding short-term rentals, and stated he had not considered the possibility of short-term rentals for parties. He said he would consult the Crime Free Division about its experience with temporary or short-term rentals. Chair Atherton reported that she looked into using Airbnb last summer. She asked if a limit could be placed on the number of days a person can rent short- term, and if they should be like handled like how campgrounds limit the number of consecutive days and require leaving for a period before renting a site again. Chair Atherton wondered if owners of Airbnb properties may be avoiding the City landlord regulations. D. Hiland added that many Airbnb spaces are often affordable than renting a hotel room. He also suggested that Airbnb rentals may be in direct competition with hotels and motels. Chair Atherton stated that the concept of Airbnb is great. She agreed with M. Crull that regulation may not be necessary yet. D. Hiland stated he will confer with the Crime Free Division and report back to the Commission at the next meeting or the following meeting. He thanked the Commission for considering this topic. H. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS None. I. REPORTS / ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING The agenda for next meeting will include a continuance of tonight’s item 1:  Planning and Zoning Commission September 28, 2016 Page 19 of 19 Public Hearing on a request by on a proposal by Adam Del Muro on behalf of William Halverson for a Special Use Permit for property at 1031 W. Lincoln Highway, DeKalb to allow for the operation of a vehicle repair and service facility. And the following items: 1. 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. 2. 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. Charlton explained that this item addresses the Puri-DeKalb site where Aspen recently opened and the new building next to it. The original agreement required a certain percentage of retail businesses to be placed in the second building. The tenant interested in the new building is ATI Physical Therapy, which does not meet that requirement. The property owners want to amend the agreement to allow ATI to use the new building in exchange for bring Harbor Freight to another property across the Sycamore Road. She reported that the deal fell through, so the applicants will be amending their application to propose different conditions; this documentation has not yet been received. This item may need to be continued one more time if the applicants are not ready. The next meeting will be October 12, 2016 at 6:00 pm at City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Seeing and hearing no further comments, Chair Atherton requested a motion to adjourn. A motion made by J. Wright, seconded by D. Castro, and approved by voice vote. The meeting adjourned 8:19p.m. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Nelson, Administrative Assistant Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on [DATE]. ITEM &1  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 9, 2016 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose Obtain a Special Use Permit in order to allow the construction of 22 units on two floors above existing first floor space designed and previously used as an indoor theater that’s been vacant for several years B. Address 1015 Blackhawk Road C. Access One on Blackhawk and one on Hillcrest D. Size 105,863 Square feet or roughly 2.4 acres E. Existing Zoning “LC” Light Commercial District F. Existing Land Use Vacant Theater and paved parking area G. Proposed Land Use Same as above but with a two floor addition with each floor having 11 units (22 units total) H. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North – LC, PDR Parking lot, restaurant and apartment uses. South – MFR-2, Apartments and rooming houses. East – MFR-2, Apartments and rooming houses. West – LC, PDR, 2-story mixed used development, retail uses and apartment complexes. I. Floodplain Not in the floodplain J. Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial PZC065-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - SR CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant requests approval of a special use permit for a proposed addition of two floors of residential units accommodating 22 dwelling units above an existing theater use at grade level that has been vacant for several years. Additions at the northeast and southwest corners of the building to accommodate entrance and exiting requirements for the new upper residential uses are also shown on the plans. Other than the special use identified above, the applicant’s application included no other requests for variations or relief from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or other City Codes. Pursuant to direction from the applicant, explained later, the following documents are considered part of the applicant’s submittal: 1. Survey document entitled “GKC Theaters, Inc.” prepared by Survey-Tech consisting of 1 sheet and dated August 2, 2016, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This document represents the current proposed site plan, showing the proposed layout of the parking lot and parking spaces, and according to the applicant, supersedes the “Proposed Site Plan” shown on Sheet T1 in Exhibit 7. 2. A one sheet document labeled “A2”, showing the first floor cinema layout of the first floor, but marked Second Floor Plan, which is not dated or identified as to who prepared the document, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 3. A handwritten letter from the applicant dated August 2, 2016 asking staff to proceed with the paper work submitted to the Board, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 4. A color elevation (east side), entitled “Blackhawk Apartments at Campus Cinema”, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 5. A one sheet “narrative”, not dated or signed, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 6. A lighting and photometric plan entitled “Blackhawk Tower”, prepared by U.S. Architectural/Sun Valley Lighting, consisting of 1 sheet and dated 5/9/16, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 7. A document entitled “Proposed Renovation to Campus Cinema Blackhawk Apartments”, prepared by ADG Design and Services, Inc. consisting of Sheets T1, L1. A1, A2, A3, and A4, latest revision dated 6/21/16, attached hereto as Exhibit 7. NOTE: The “Proposed Site Plan” shown on Sheet T1 and all of Sheet A2 was revised by the applicant in Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS As shown in the picture on the next page, the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Hillcrest Drive and Blackhawk Road. It is improved with a one story building containing roughly 15,200 square foot that operated as Campus Cinema Theaters before CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 2 of 12 being closed and remaining vacant for the last several years. The property has non- conforming building setbacks because the building is not greater than 30’ from the a residentially zoned property located along the west property line, it has a building setback from Blackhawk right-of-way of less than 40’, and has non-conforming parking pavements setback from the property lines. Note that Exhibit 1 shows a greater than 40’ setback from Blackhawk drawn to a building line that extends over what is labeled “sidewalk”. This sidewalk is actually a roof covered portico as shown in the picture on the right below. This setback should be measured to the portico as it does not meet the exception criteria for encroachment into a yard as defined in the UDO. An adjoining parking lot and Fanatico Italian restaurant are both located to the north. The parking lot used to be owned by the applicant until he sold it to a nearby multiple family building so they could meet their parking requirement. Multiple family and campus housing is located to the east and south, and a shopping center and a residential planned development abuts the west property line of the Subject Property. Subject Property  IV. ANALYSIS CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 3 of 12 Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 of this report represent written correspondence between staff and the applicant between the first part of July and the middle of August. This communication is referenced in this report. Provided below is a list of relevant code related issues for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s consideration with regard to this project: 1. Use and Parking. Section 5.07 of the UDO allows “dwelling units when located above the ground floor, with an allowed commercial use on the ground floor” as a special use in the LC Zoning District. It is important to note that even if a use is listed as a permitted use, it is not permitted “by right” as part of any expansion unless the proposed use or uses are or can be constructed to comply with all other provisions of associated City regulatory codes. For example, dwelling units (whether permitted or special) cannot be approved as part of an expansion to an existing use unless adequate parking exists or can be provided to accommodate both the existing use and the proposed expansion. Furthermore, when additional parking is required to support a building and use expansion and the existing parking lot is non-conforming, the City’s UDO requires the parking lot be brought into compliance as part of the expansion. Article 12 of the City’s UDO includes parking requirements for theaters based on the number of seats (1 parking space for every 4 theater seats), and for residential units based on the number of bedrooms in the units (1.5 parking spaces for each 1 bedroom unit and 2.5 parking spaces for 2 bedroom units). Parking requirements can be determined by evaluating 2 of the applicant’s submittals. Exhibit 2 represents the applicant’s most recent submittal showing his plans for the first floor theater use. It shows 4 screens located within the first floor theater use, with each theater screen providing 138 seats, for a total of 552 theater seats. This number of seats requires 138 parking spaces (552/4=138). Sheet T1 in Exhibit 7 shows the proposed mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units proposed. It shows 10, one-bedroom dwelling units requiring 15 parking spaces and 12, two-bedroom units requiring 30 parking spaces. Total parking spaces for the theater based on this data is 183 parking spaces. Exhibit 1 shows the applicant’s site layout plan accommodating 184 cars, or one more space than required based on the calculations provided above. This plan includes perimeter pavement setbacks as required. It incorporates a 45 degree angle parking design, which is effective in accommodating tighter spaces. Specifically, parking space depths of 19.7’ can be separated by a 12.5’ drive aisle, for a total dimension of 51.9’ for a drive aisle with 45 degree angle parking on both CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 4 of 12  sides. Three aisles of 45 degree parking on both sides can be accommodated within the 176.22’ feet lot width of the lot, while still leaving room for pavement setbacks from both the east and west property lines. The proposed site design shown in Exhibit 1 was submitted in response to earlier comments provided by staff, attached as Exhibit 8. It is important to note staff’s questions regarding the number of theater seats in that comment letter, which referenced the original plans still shown as Sheet A2 in Exhibit 7. Given the large amount of square footage within each theater, staff questioned why there were so few seats designated on the plans, because it appeared the space could accommodate roughly double the amount of seats. The applicant responded that the he assumed about half the number of seats because he had already divided two of the theater spaces in half by constructing walls, and that he intended to do that with the other two theaters, even though these divisions were not shown on the original plans. The applicant’s later submittal (Exhibit 2) shows these walls, drawn in by the applicant, who also labeled the unused space as “storage.” Staff cautions the Planning and Zoning Commission that this is deceptive and that the applicant is manipulating the seating numbers for the sole purpose of claiming compliance with parking regulations. The UDO does not specify any parking requirement for storage, so reducing the number of seats in each theater and designating the balance of the space as storage was used by the applicant as a means to reduce the parking requirement. Despite staff requests to show seating layouts on plans and/or be allowed access into the building to confirm seating layouts, the applicant did not respond and staff has not been able to confirm existing interior improvements and seating layouts. 2. Lack of Building Code Compliance. Even if staff could confirm seating layouts in divided theater spaces as discussed above, it is important to note that these divisions cannot be considered if the applicant can’t provide plans proving that they can be constructed in compliance with building codes. The applicant did not submit these plans despite staff’s requests. The City’s Fire Department has confirmed in their report attached as Exhibit 11 that the plans do not comply with code requirements as they do not provide adequate exiting. 3. Additional drive aisle and turning radii required. The UDO requires additional drive aisle widths and turning radii may be required to accommodate City of DeKalb fire vehicles or the aisle serves as the principal means of access to on-site building or structures. The City Engineer and the Fire Department have both commented that the narrow drive aisles require greater CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 5 of 12  spaces to turn large fire department vehicles at the end of each parking row and to maneuver around the north, east and south sides of the building. Turning templates should be provided at the end of each parking row and sufficient room provided to allow fire trucks to make turns at the end of each row without jumping curbs or landscape islands, crossing over the property lines, or driving over marked parking spaces where cars could be parked. As stated above, the Fire Department does not have enough room within the 18.4’ drive aisle on the north side of the building, the 12.5’ drive aisle provided on the east side of the building, or in the 16’ area on the south side of the building to stage fire department trucks in the manner that would be necessary to service the building during an emergency. A minimum distance of at least 20’. Comments from the Fire Department with regard to these issues are provided in Exhibit 11. 4. Compact Cars. Section 12.03.6 of the UDO makes provisions to allow for compact cars for multiple family residential uses. The Code provides for a maximum number of 25 percent of the spaces required for these residential uses to be reduced in size to 7.5 feet in width and 17’ in depth as measured perpendicular to the drive aisle. The proposed plan shows a total of 47 compact parking spaces, which is about 25 percent of the TOTAL number of parking spaces provided on the lot to serve both the theater and residential uses. However, only 11 compact parking spaces are allowed, which is 25 percent of the 45 spaces required to serve the multiple family use. The proposed site plan shows many of these compact car parking spaces located immediately east and south of the building, where as stated above it Item 3, the Fire Department does have enough room to stage its vehicles to service an emergency in the building. While up to 11 parking spaces may be designated for compact cars to serve the multiple family use, the proposed plan shows too many compact spaces and shows spaces in locations that are not acceptable to the Fire Department. 5. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. Section 12.04.5 of the UDO requires a minimum of 20 square feet of interior landscapes area be provided for each parking space in a parking lot. The proposed plan shows 184 parking spaces, requiring 3,680 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping (landscape islands). The submitted plan is substantially deficient of this requirement. For perspective, consider the standard size of a landscape island is roughly 9’x18’ or 162 square feet. Based on this assumption and the proposed number of parking space proposed by the applicant, a total of 23 landscape islands of that size would be required, when only 9 are shown on the plans. The UDO also provides that a landscape island should be provided for CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 6 of 12  every 20 parking spaces, however there are areas that the plan does not meet this requirement. 6. Perimeter and other Landscape Screening. Section 7.05 of the UDO includes landscape screening requirements between commercial and residential properties. This situation exists along the western property line at the north end. The Landscape Plan provided on Sheet L1 in Exhibit 7 does not even show a pavement setback along the west property line, therefore the proposed landscaping is not in compliance with Section 7.05 of the UDO. This section of the UDO also requires a 6’ tall “sight-proof fence or wall”. While the newest site plan (Exhibit 1) does include a note indicating a “6’ high fence” along the west property line adjacent the residential properties, no fence details were provided to determine whether it is “sight-proof”. Given the deficiency of the Landscape Plan as described above, a full landscape plan analysis was not completed as it is already not compliant with UDO requirements and no variations were requested. 7. Maximum Gross Square Footage. Section 5.07.06 of the UDO states that “a principal building, in which one or more uses may locate, shall not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area.” The proposed gross square footage of the existing theater and the new residential is 49,785 square feet, or nearly double the allowed square footage. No variation from this requirement was requested as part of the application. 8. Nonconforming Expansion Section 19.04.1 of the UDO provides that structures with non-conforming setbacks can be expanded only if the expansion “conforms to the requirements of the Ordinance and does not expand any dimensional nonconformity. The applicant was advised (as shown in staff correspondence in Exhibit 8) that it would be necessary to step back the residential expansion in the area where the project adjoins residential on the west side or request a variation. The applicant did neither. 9. Structural capacity to accommodate 2 story addition. As part of the formal review of this application with various City staff, it was noted that the existing theater has been vacant for many years and that it may be in a state of disrepair, and potentially not capable of accommodating the structural load CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 7 of 12  of a two story addition. The structural integrity of the foundation, load bearing walls and the roof should be evaluated by a professional hired by the applicant, and the report provided to the City before any further consideration of allowing a 2 story addition to this building. 10. Storage Use. The attempt by the applicant to reduce the parking requirement by dividing each theater in half with a wall and calling half of each space “storage” has not been designed or shown on the plans in a way that meets building code exiting requirements, and is deceptive at best. In order for the City to seriously consider a plan that reduces the size of each theater, additional information is required to show how code compliant exiting can be accomplished, and how the storage space is to be reasonably used. Designating such a large area of space within the original theater space as “storage” without providing any real plans to show both spaces will function could be an attempt to show something on the plans that could later be changed with no way to accommodate the required additional parking that switching the storage space back to a theater would require. 11. Dumpster Not Enclosed. Section 17.11 of the UDO requires the dumpster to be enclosed with materials similar in character to that of the principal structure. The plans do not comply with this requirement and no variation was requested. 12. Incompatible exterior elevation construction materials. The image on the left below shows the existing exterior building materials used on the first floor. Note that there are 2 distinct materials and colors used. The proposed plans call for both split face CMU block and aluminum siding, both of which are different from existing materials. This use of materials is also not consistent with the existing character of the nearby properties which utilize common materials and design technique on all four building elevations as shown in the image on the right below. The proposed exterior elevations would be completely incompatible with surrounding uses. CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 8 of 12 13. Inconsistency between submitted plans and plans not prepared by professionals as required by the UDO. As stated above, Exhibit 8, 9, and 10 were provided to show staff’s written correspondence with the applicant. In response to the July 6th letter from staff shown in Exhibit 8, the applicant resubmitted documents attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. Revised Landscaping and Lighting plans were not submitted to coincide with the new site plan. As a result the Landscape Plan does not comply with codes as it does not even show the same landscape areas as the revised site plan. The Lighting Plan also was not revised to relocate fixtures according to the revised site layout. Staff deems them to be incomplete and inaccurate. Staff does not recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council approve incomplete or inconsistent plans. It is also important to note that some planning documents are not prepared and signed by professionals, as required by the UDO. 14. Review Process and Direction from the Applicant. Staff made multiple attempts to advise this applicant regarding the process to either gain compliance with City Codes or request necessary variations, as outlined in Exhibits 8, 9, and 10 of this report. When the applicant resubmitted plan documents shown as Exhibits 1 and 2, staff commented to the applicant that circulation in the new plan appeared too tight to accommodate fire department movements around the corners in the parking lot, and that the fire department may not be able to service the areas near and around the building given the limited aisle widths in those areas. Staff indicated a more thorough review of the plans would be completed by City staff (including the City Engineer and Fire Department) to determine compliance with all City codes, and that findings would be reported to the applicant for his use in finalizing any necessary plan revisions and prior to publishing for the public hearing. The applicant, however, was adamant that he “was done” and that no further City reviews or comments were necessary, as he was confident his plans complied with City codes. Staff also pointed out that revisions to the lighting and landscape plan would be required to be consistent with CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 9 of 12  the revised parking lot layout. Specifically, the applicant was informed that the lighting plan on file was not accurate as the location of light pole would now fall in various areas that would interfere with parking spaces and/or maneuvering areas due to the modifications to the parking lot design. Despite staff’s efforts, the applicant informed staff in writing that the documents in hand constituted his entire application and that they were to be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. V. STANDARDS OF SPECIAL USES Section 14.03.05 of the UDO states that in making a recommendation to approve a special use, the Plan Commission shall consider and adopt findings in each of the following listed standards. Each standard is listed below in bold, and is followed by a finding that the Planning and Zoning Commission may consider based on staff’s review and either modify or adopt in its recommendation. a. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. For the reasons enumerated above in this staff report, the proposed special use does not comply with all provision of the applicable district regulations. b. The proposed special use will not be unreasonably detrimental to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is to be located or to the public welfare at large. For the reasons enumerated above in this staff report, the proposed special use has not been designed to accommodate on-site parking, on-site circulation, the accommodation of emergency vehicles, landscaping standards, and design standards, all of which are intended to protect the public welfare at large. c. The location and size of the special use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in or conducted in connection with it, and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to it are such that the special use will not dominate the immediate neighborhood so as to prevent development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable zoning district regulations. In determining whether the special use will so dominate the immediate neighborhood, consideration shall be given to: (1) The location, nature and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences on the site; and (2) The nature and extent of proposed landscaping and screening on the CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 10 of 12  proposed site. The proposed plans are not compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed building will incorporate 4 different building materials, and landscaping does not meet the City’s UDO, particularly when adjacent to the existing residential property to the west. d. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The applicant did not submit any plans to determine whether there is adequate utility and drainage facilities on the property. Staff is not aware of any drainage complaints on file with the City. e. The proposed use, where such developments and uses are deemed consistent with good planning practice, can be operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the permitted developments and uses in the district; can be developed and operated in a manner that is visually compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area; shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located; and is deemed essential or desirable to preserve and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of DeKalb. The applicant has not provided plans or documentation to prove that this project can be constructed safely or that the addition of 22 units will not generate a parking problem, particularly if the spaces designated as “storage” on the plans are some day returned to a theater use. The applicant has also not demonstrated that the structure is capable of accommodating the structural load of a two story addition, particularly given that the extended vacancy and lack of maintenance within the existing building could have created a breeding ground for mold and other conditions that would not structurally support this addition. Professionally prepared signed and sealed reports should be provided for the City’s review, or access to the interior of the building should be provided before the City considers any favorable action on any addition to this building. VI. CITIZEN INPUT One letter was received in response to the notices that were sent out. The owner of the Fanatico property located to the north wrote the following comment: “I would support the request ONLY with the following conditions: 1. New retail is added to the first floor and occupied prior to apartment rental. 2. A covenant disallowing Section 8 use of any apartment.” CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 11 of 12 Additional citizen input is made possible via the public hearing to be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is unfortunate that the applicant chose to abandon the process and direct staff to move his case forward to the public hearing phase before the Planning and Zoning Commission because the applicant did not work with staff to consider site plan revisions that were necessary to allow code compliance, did not submit a set of plans that were consistent with the final site plans, and did not identify and request or pay application fees for any variations as part of the application. A residential expansion on this site is possible if designed correctly and a proper application is filed. The applicant’s choice to abandon the process, however, leaves too many unanswered questions and an inability for the Planning and Zoning Commission to make findings on the standards for special use that can support the project. There is inadequate parking, especially considering that certain parking spaces shown on the plan would have to be removed to accommodate emergency vehicles. The applicant’s proposal to reduce the parking burden by converting half of the theater space to storage or another use is not wrong, but it needs further definition and plans need to be provided that prove the multiple uses can be constructed to meet building codes. Finally, the Landscaping and Lighting Plans are not consistent with the most recent site plan presented by the applicant and no variations were requested. In addition to staff’s efforts to communicate what was needed, staff had numerous meetings with the applicant in City Hall, and made several attempts to advise the applicant on what was needed. The applicant has not met the burden of providing documentation that the proposed special use meets the requirements or standards outlined in the UDO, and has not requested variations or relief for the City’s consideration. Unless the applicant withdraws the application and requests permission to start with a new application and provide new plans for review, staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend denial of the requested special use. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following sample motion: Based on the submitted petition, staff report, and testimony presented for Case #PZC-11-2016, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings provided is Section V, Standards of Special Uses, and recommend to the City Council denial of the requested special use. Respectfully Submitted, Jo Ellen Charlton Derek Hiland CASE #PZC-11-2016 - Special Use Permit for 1015 Blackhawk Road Page 12 of 12 August 26, 2016 Dear Property Owner: The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will consider requests by Pete Occhipinti to approve a special use permit allowing the construction of multi-family dwelling units on LC-zoned property. The subject property is located at 1015 Blackhawk Road and is situated at the corner at Hillcrest and Blackhawk Road. If this request is approved, the Applicant would be permitted to construct apartments above the Campus Cinema building with twenty two (22) new dwelling units on the property. The DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission will review these requests at their regular meeting of September 14, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be at the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois. As a property owner within 250 feet of the above-mentioned property, I encourage you to attend this meeting to learn about and comment on the proposal. I also encourage you to submit any written comments you may have on the proposal no later than Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5PM. The enclosed comment sheet is included for your convenience. If you wish to contact your Alderman regarding this request and you live or reside in the First Ward, David Jacobson is your Alderman and he can be reached at 847-809-2074. If you have any questions about this request, please feel free to contact the Community Development Department at (815) 748-2060. Sincerely, Derek Hiland Derek Hiland Planner Enclosures CC: Mayor, City Council, City Manager DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Pete Occhipinti, Applicant  Citizen Response Form 1015 Blackhawk Road SUP Request Owners Name: _____________________________________________________________ Property Address: ___________________________________________________________ Basic Input: □ I support the Special Use Permit proposal. □ I support the proposal in general but would like to see specifics before I decide. □ I do not support the proposal. Written Comments: PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 2 of 4 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on or after September 14, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 South Fourth Street, DeKalb, Illinois, on a petition by Pete Occhipinti to approve a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of twenty two (22) multi-family dwelling above the ground floor with an allowed commercial use (movie theater) on the ground floor located on Light Commercial “LC”-zoned property. The property is legally described as LOT 706 IN THE TWELFTH ADDITION TO ROLLING MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK “R” OF PLATS ON PAGE 9, ON APRIL 14, 1976, AS DOCUMENT NO. 392887 IN THE RECORDER’S OFFICE OF DEKALB COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALL SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DEKALB, THE COUNTY OF DEKALB AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. (PIN: 08-15-151-011) The property is commonly known as Campus Cinemas and located at 1015 Blackhawk Road. All interested persons are encouraged to submit written comments on this proposal to the City of DeKalb by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 5PM, and are invited to appear and be heard at the time and place listed above. Further information is available from the Community Development Department, (815) 748- 2060. Christina Atherton, Chairman DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission City of DeKalb PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 3 of 4 ...... ...... 0 0'1 iii CD (") ~ Ill " ~ ;;o Ill 0 c. PZC059-16 1015 Blackhawk Property SUP - NPN Page 4 of 4  CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY N STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ( ss COUNTY OF OGLE ) s I, Dale E. Wallace, an Illinois Professional Land Surveyor, hereby certifY that the fo11owing described I property was surveyed by me or under my direct supervision. I further certifY that this plat is a true and correct representation of said survey to the best of my *- !f LOT 7 I knowledge and belief. Dimensions are given in feet and 70' .I decimals of a foot thereof. Bearing shown hereon arc in degrees, minutes and seconds. Bearings are for zoNtNG LC I description purposes and relative only to each other. ~~-------~- 176. 22' - - - - - - - I OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED: Lot 706 in the I Twelfth Addition to Rolling Meadows Subdivision, a subdivision of part of the Northwest Quarter of Section L 15, Township 40 North, Range 4 East of the Third t Principal Meridian, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Book "R" of Plats on page 9, on April 14, EDGEBROOK 1976, as Document No. 392887 in the Recorder's Office of DeKalb County, Illinois, all situated in the City of DRIVE DeKalb, the County of DeKalb and the State of Illinois. I Dated this 29th day of July, 2016, A.D., at the office of I Surve~~· . . . .- ~~~ Dale E. Wallace, I11ino is Professional t 10' I I Land Surveyor No. 35-2821 "'i'5 (_) t "-- :t: eJ I li: "':i: 1i; "' 6lct. I es 00) t£ ~ I ~ ib f?J '___, ct. Cl 00) ~ I ~ ' ___, I - <:) c' I .~ -0 ro 0:: fi: I - c,d' c,O-# ~(;- 0 (X) I "' .~ sUB· (_) ~ N N <D . ""~ .~ 0~ (;- l{) I f:S ~ "$ •"' L ~ <D t ca t KIMBERLY LOT 706 r I DRIVE I 104720.83 SQUARE FEET I I I I ----i I 1n · - - D DUMPSTER m=======~======~\ "-DO-± NOT EN1ER SIGN I I I eJ e:::5 ~ I ~ I I 'll I I I f'l 0: (3 < I ~ (/) I 11.9' ~ ~~_J ""' I Cl ~ 0 ~ u I u lHEA TRES ..., 0 N 10' < ~ I ~ I i2.5' I LOT 703 I I I ' . I L - - - DRIVE -- - ---- - - - -- - --- l \ -.J 0 I I ( PARKING SPACES - -- J - ------ \ 137 REGULAR SPACES 47 COMPACT SPACES 184 TOTAL SPACES \ \ LEGEND SURVEY-TECH A DIVISION OF C.E.S., INC. \ \ BOUNDARY OF SURVEY PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FIRM LICENSE NO. 184-001260 P.O. BOX 634 .. ROCHELLE, ILLINOIS 61068 e MONUMENT FOUND (815)-562-8771 FAX: (815)-562-6555 \ \ B 0 P.K. NAIL FOUND IRON PIN SET DATE: 8-02-2016 SCALE: 1" = 3o' DRAWN BY: DEW REVISED: -~ BUILDING SETBACK LINE \ - - - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE GKC THEATRES, INC. -~~~~~~~~~~~- UTILITY EASEMENT LINE \ FILE NUMBER: ACAD: S19416 DEKALB COUNTY S194-16  l:l&' -2' .,!<----------------------------'-------~--------------------------- -- -------------- - - LINE OF \lEW FLOOR ABOVE -------~ I - - - -- - - - - - Q ___ I1ENCASED LINE OF NEW ,5TEEi.. COLUMN FLOOR ABOVE ----- ----------' TO SUPPORT INEW FLOOR I /ABOVE I ·-~~ 0;> r--. i;; UP ~1"C> ~G.:-.!? Sn ta..AG: e:- S)rJ~t-t&e .5r'.oAA&~ NEW I LOBBY FOR I RE51DEN~5 I , I I I I ' I SECONDARY~ ENTRY / SCREEN -1 SCREEN -2 SCREEN -3 SCREEN -4 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS I 138 SEATS ' II II '/;;> ~ I ' --------------- d I CINEMA L0!3!3Y ------~ ,--------------- -- -------- -- -- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____j NEW L0!3!3Y FOR RESIDENTS UP CINEMA L0!3!3Y 1{,'-4' POTTICO ;ll'-lel' - Jr/7.'~~r.s~E~c7.o~N~D~F~Lo~o~R~P~L~A~N~~~N~E~W~A~D~D~I~TI~O~N___________ Et~ CINEMA BUILDING: \ A3...,. 118' = 1'-0' "_, -EXISTING AREA : IS,200 SQFT. -ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: I,IIS SQ.FT. SHEET -TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA: 16 ,3IS SQFT. A2 OF i,  ( -f) ~\ ~ -- (;\ ...., B (I) 1\. 0 -::::: r ~ <b G ) ~ -·0- :r- (\ " "G ")) fJp.... 0 <. :r:. ~ rt 1::> I + [ )- Exhibit 3 e - -(- + 0> + ;r + c.. ~ + -.- -l.. VJ ro ~ 0 ~ "] """':!. ~ ~ ~ ~ ") ~ f -\> 9J ~ ....... f'  !11 !!!I - Exhibit 4 BLACKHAWK APARTMENTS AT CAMPUS CINEMA  Exhibit 5 PROPOSED AfYI'S AT CAMPUS CfNEMA NARRATIVE My intent is to remodel the Campus Cinema, a 4 screen movie theater by adding a second and third floors to the existing campus Cinema. The ground floor shall remain a theater as it is now. The second and third floors will serve as a residential apartments. The added floors will consist of 11 units each floor totaling 22 units for the building. The ground floor will have an addition to serve as entrance and fire stairs. These addition will be on the northeast corner & on south side west end. This property is in center of multi-family residential area. The theater is the only non residential structure in the area. I see no negative impact on the adjacent property by remodeling this property into a multi-family apartment building above the existing cinema theater. Mostly all adja,cent properties are apartments. I feel since the character of the area is consistent with multi-family dwelling building this project will only enhance, complement, and increase the adjacent property value.  EXHIBIT 6 •0 . 1 •0. ? "o. 7 •D. 5 •0. c •0. : •0. 7 •(). 6 28'0" MOUNTING HEIGHT (25' POLE+ 36" BASE) ":::. 6 '"o. ~ •-J.::. 'o 1 .J.l l'~uy ">~• l.fJ'(JJ-~ L:hC. D.S •0. c . ~ 0. J •J. 5 .u. ~ •u.o •u.o •0, D •D. ~ •0. 1 •l.? •,L:, .1.2 10 1 .0 \.--r,·,<:\':..,,4~- "!. R •0. 3 •0.0 •0.0 Arrangement Description Lum. Lumenslum. Watts • LLF •o.:: •0. 3 ~) ';';;/ "? . - ·\. 3 "o.4 '"c.1 •0.0 •0.0 . SINGLE SINGLE RZR -111-M-SOPL ED-700m A-NW • RZR-IV-FT-80PLED-700mA-NW 17688 ' 16647 i 172.9 173.4 • 0.920 '0.920 •0. / ! RSM-2 . 2@ 180 DEGREES RZR-VSQ-M-80PLED-700mA-NW 18989 ' 173 • 0.920 "o. 1 •0.0 "o. 1 •0. 1 •0. 2 •2.8 .2 . ,; •0. l "o. o -~-------·-~~- -·- - -···········- •(I . 1 •(). 1 . 0. 2 •C.4 ..0. 7 •3 ._4 •3.0 •.., ,. L..,. ·-' . •""-'(}.___ 1 '6 2. "o.2_"o.o .iLl •0 8 - . . .U-.."-~ . 7 .1-. •0. 0 -·-EDGEBROOK ·····-···-----·~· ·---·-- Calculation Surnrnary •0. J 'o s •:,. . l •0 1 "o. !.:!. •:_;. 5 "o. 8 DRIVE La be PARKING LOT 'CalcType !:luminance · Units :Fe Avg : 2.32 Max 4.3 M'n 0.6 A\lg/Min, Max/Mini. 3.87 7.17 ·- 'o 1 ~J. 5 •0.8 •0. l "o !,i ~J' 5 ·~ "o 1 "o. ~ •0.5 "o. 9 .u.- "o'" "o.h • 0.5 "o. 9 ' ~J.1 "o L "o. "o. 2 •0. 1 "o.z "c. "o s "o.~ "o. 1 •0. 2 •c. "o. 1 "o. 1 •0.5 •0. ~ ..0. 2 •0.0 "o 1 "o. 1 • ' "·!"' . .,i "o. 5 .0. 2 •0. 1 "o. 1 •J. ~ "o s "o. 1 . f3 • "o . 1 "o. 1 J. . 0. 5 "o. 7 "o. "o. "o. a . 1 1 0.5 ..0. R 'o 1 "o. 1 "J. "o. s •0. l "o.1 ~J . "o. R 'o 1 •0. 1 "o. 3 •0.8 "o. 1 •0. 1 "o. 7 '"i .1 •0. l "o. 1 •o.e •0.5 "o. s '\ . "o. 1 •0. 1 •0 ..l •0. ~. •0. 1 "o. 1 •0.3 .0.5 •O.B •0. 1 •n.> ~). 3 •o.s "o. 1 "o. 1 ~J~ "o. s .0. :~ •0. l "o. 1 •1). .1• 0.5 •0.8 . '-..0 "o. 1 •0 . 1 "u. ~- "u. Y "1 . "o. 1 •0.1 •IL "o. '-' "o. 9 ~!. --, "o. 1 :·.. o "o o •0.::. •0. 3 "o. s •0' 9 . . 2)/'].1 ,· •_., ( .•. ' -., •2.0 ··-;. "t . b --i--,,81 :3 •2. 1 •2..--.-cr /;!v.s; "o.3 . ~J. 3 "o.1 ·~,. () •0.0 KIMBERLY / •0. 1 •0. l •0.3 •0. 5 ·o . 2 0 '~1-~ • -.. ri'·- •2.0 •0.) •0 (I 1. l. t-,_:_, l . I ~).J "o.1 ·~,. 0 . . • () . •0. 3 "o. s •(1.8 ' •:-. 1 •lJ.U c DRIVE "o. 1 0. l \'"' \_. g .2 . .3 h,~ ' 1.6 l .8 \. 2 ~).s:·o.l "o. 1 "o. 1 iJ. J ·o. ", •0. 8 ~l.s '"o.-; ·~-. 1 •0 0 •0. 1 "o. J •0 '~ "u. 1 ~1.7 "1 . s "i' 3 "o. 5 •::i. l 0 \ 5 2,. 2 ·''·' •0. 1 •0. 1 •0·.) •,, . 7 . 3 '2 ".o ' 4 \.s''"l.8 . . 2' 0 ' 2'. 4 ·: . 7 "o." ·~ . 2 •0. (1 ·------ "' .........., ............ "o. 1 •0. 1 "o. z.. ·"o .' 'r;s 1.0 •L • '. 0 . ?.S< ";_.. 7 ":;. t ·- . 2 •1.5 • . 2.0 2. 4 "o.-; "o. o •0. l •0. 1 0 1 • 4,~-~t-:--9"·--~2--- •!.4 "1 . 4 •~ . 2 •0 C• ...•. -z~··'Q --:"~h-:i-· ~2---:--5----~2.. ,--5 ···.~2-.·.•.-3-~~::.·.-~2- .... '). -·---- 0 :; . <· ·-· --- --····~---·--·------"'" -- - .. ..·.·,-:.1 . ..··.· '.o. , I 2. 4 :•' /i "o. 1 •C•. l "o 2 "o . .: ·~-·. 5 • ·p. s. "o: D.' .... I I •1.3 •:: . $ •I)' 9 "o. 4 "o. L• "o. r- •f•. 1 'o 1 "o . 2 ":·. 4 "'" . .1}-'·\J.O,~. •2 • 8 •I). 6 . "-'r .o.c- o.:::~ 0 M II "o. c- "c·. 1 •O:. l •o. 2 "c . o = "n. c "o. 1 •:. 0 . o "o ill ell •0. c "o. o o "o. : ·c .o '.o "oJ) () (f). "o. (· •(•. 0 ·~ "0 .0 .. (t. 0 "'o . c.- "c.. o "o.o "o.-: ·: ' 0 THEATRES "o. c •0.0 "o:.o "o.c ·: ' 0 -9 "o. c "c. o o·. o o. c . . 4,2 I •0. c "c. o "oi. o "o. 1 . . } 2' 3. 0 c "o. c . .. •c. 0 0,. 1 0. 1 • I~ p . . (· ,: 0 ~ "o. 0 -~::J 1 "o. 4 .. "1. 1 •0. c "c. 1 o,_ 1 "o. 1 "c. :. ·c.:: •c-: 0 • • -------- •2:. 4 02' :-7 . ,"2 ; '·--._, \.7 ~).8 "o. ·- 3 • 0. 1 (.) •0. 1 •c. l • I~.) "c.: 3 ,... "2;. 2 2 •1.4 "o.~ ·~ '"o. 1 eel LOT 703 "o. 1 "o. s . .i I)' 4 6' 4 "c "o. s •0.5 "o. -s ~). 7 •0 .f. . (I_ C) •0 9 •0.!3 '"o. 7 "o. 3 ·- "o. 1 () (!) "o. 1 "c;. 2 ..o·. ~ •I]. 5 I "' "c . 6 . "o 6 "o. 7 "o ; "o. s . 0.9 ·~ • C· .':. - • 0. 1 (.) c eel a: "o. 1 "c. z "o. 5 "6. 7 c w "o. 1 "n. 6 •0. 8 ". • 1. •0 ' "o. 4 •I~. 2 •0 1 E ::J :s0 "u. 1 ":). 2 "o · "o . 7 •0.9 •o. "o. 'l "o. 1 1- ~ "o. 1 "o. 1 *o.,; \~o . 7 "o. s ·o,,; •0. :3 •D.:.. •0. 1 ~J.: •0. c :s <( FOUND CHI SE~ED f\;I}Gj3)9 •0 . 3 I ~ 0 1. 7 '"o. o "o. c IN SIDEWALK () "o:1 ~J. "o. 3 "'c,. 5 •o •0.2 "c·. 4 "o, ..J': ' .1 . l •0. 0 "o. c <( ....J "o.l ~J. -~--.? •J.4, "o.e •D. 0 "o.::: aJ "o. 1 ~J. •0.1 •c . 1 •0. l "o. 1 •0.0 "o. c DRI\!P Page 1 of 1  EXHIBITS 7 PROPOSED RENOVATION TO I ISSUED DATE ilm0.14 PARKING TABULATION SCI-lEMA TIC 4 DESIGN /DEVELOPMENT ONLY city oubmloolon 06.10201 IRAIJN BY•-- CAMPUS CINEMA 2ND 4 3RD FLOOR APT. SCI-lEDULE FOR PLANN lNG APPROVAL clt~ COMMENTS 06212 0 16 PRII.ET I 014X: 4 Tf-lEATER SCREENS = 138 SEATS EACI-l = 552 SEATS NOT FOR PERMIT 4 CONST. REVISED.___ BLACKHAWK APARTMENTS 552 SEATS I 4 = 138 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES APT 11 NUMBER OF GROSS AREA INDEX OF DRAWINGS: DEKALB, ILLINOIS BEDROOMS OF EACI-l APT. REQUIRED Tl-lEATER SPACES = 138 T1 TITLE SHEET: SITE PLAN, PROJECT INFORMATION L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN & SCHEDULE AFT 201 I 301 2 BEDROOM 1055 SQ.FT. A1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EMPLOYEES = 6 A2 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 150 SQ.FT. A3 2nd FLOOR PLAN AFT 202 I 302 I BEDROOM (12! 2 BEDROOMS 4 (10! I BEDROOMS = 22 TOTAL = A4 3rd FLOOR PLAN AFT 203 I 303 I BEDROOM ~43 SQFT. 45 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AFT 204 I 304 I BEDROOM ~43 SQFT. TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 183 SF ACES AFT 205 I 305 2 BEDROOM 1180 SQ.FT. TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = ~~~SPACES+~ NEW ADDITION TO CINEMA BUILDING PARALLEL SPACES = 208 SPACES AFT 206 I 306 800 SQFT. ·-· ~ ·-· I BEDROOM -PROPOSED RENOVATION WILL BE FULLY 2 BEDROOM SPRINKLERED ON ALL LEVELS 4 ALARMED AFT 201 I 301 1015 SQFT. AFT 208 I 308 2 BEDROOM 1015 SQFT. -PROPOSED RENOVATION WILL 1-lAVE RATED 3 HOUR SEPRATION BETWEEN CINEMA 4 RESIDENTS. AFT 20~ I 30~ 2 BEDROOM 1040 SQ.FT. EXISTING GROUND FLOOR = 15,200 SQ.FT. cinema bldg AFT 210 I 310 I BEDROOM 830 SQFT. PROPOSED ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: 1,115 SQ.FT. AFT 211 I 311 2 BEDROOM 1085 SQ.FT. PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ADDITION: 16,135 SQH BLACKHAWK APARTMENT PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR ADDITION: 16,135 SQFT. AT CAMPUS CINEMA 4~,185 SQFT. for cinema bldg ~ TOTAL BUILDING AREA "'" "'ll .." '~ :J Q5• N .!.~ ~3 _., ~H ' 0 tflG; "'" ~~ ..J • 0:: Ulll w-IJ EAST VIEW - CONCEPT 0 >-- "' .... Ill <( ffi "'"EE 1l ~ / 0 <I) + "' = i G.~ o"t). 0:: L / I u 0 0 ~ w .-. m ~ L ~~(\0 ll_ \j <Ill \ w 0:: 0-' 8~ "' _J <)_'<J\1:)'6.~ ~ \ iii-- ~ ::> ::> .:q ............ \ <( 0:: c.:> ~ {j if Qu 9J L 0 0:: "' n.lii / / \ 616.22' Q_ f- ~~ u •I ., w.., 0 0:: Q_ Tllf<EE STORr CAMPUS CINEMA ADDITION \ ?J THEATRES u~..f- b t- <:[ \ II AND PROPOSED s~ (5 d) a z ()) (Jl APTS. &u/t-;; t- \ (]\ 0 70/o/1/ ~ _j _j - za o_ 10 \ ONE STORr ADDITION Q ~ _j ~ DRIVEWAY w Q \ d) ~ I Q\ _J _ 1_ 1 ~ I _ II J_ I ~. I I I ENTRANCE ---------- ~ I BLACKHAWK ROAD I I 0 ~--------l ,--------l t::Jt:rj ,-------- 0:: w 0 _J ~ N "<!- ~ 0 I u~ ::::> I ~ I I I I I rn ....... r.o r.o ~~ ~u 0:: w 1- I 1---i z I ~~ ~ Q_ 0 ;] I I <rn I I ~0 <t:rj I 0 0 >-- 8 n r.o Mt:rj t:rjtJj I I I ~ I I ~ I >- _J Q_ w 0:: w 0 (}{ 1- ~ _J w I ~ I I 0 I _J <( Q_ 0 II SHEET I ~ I I T1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE' I' - 60'-0' SCALE ~ II IF 1 Plant Material List CAMPUS CINEMA  13&'-2' 10'-0' v LINE OF NEW FLOOR ABOVE _.. ,r ' -----~- ' 'l - - - - - - - - - [ 1=~11"" "C.l=l""l ~ LINE OF NEW ::>I t:t:L.. COLUMN FLOOR ABOVE TO SUFFORT ~ b> NEW FLOOR ·~~",... "" ----- ;,. r-' "' UF NEW L066Y FOR :::>EN"' A I' " SECO~ ENTRY SCREEN -1 SCREEN -2 SCREEN -3 SCREEN -4 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS 138 SEATS .,' ~ p I I I l I I I I c CINEMA L066Y n I I I NEW L066Y FOR RESIDENTS "'' §! UF <[ L: Ill ~ z -_j . ~ o- CINEMA L066Y ~ <Oo:i ::::::1 _J Q_<[ t--- L::'IL <[Ill " OCI ,; <:, MAIN EN ~,_"I - J ~ POTTICO ~ L lh'-4' y ~ ll ll ll ll ll ll ,---J 31'-10' - ,rr~~~'~S=E~C70~N=D~FL~O~O~R~P~L~A~N~--~N=E~W~A=D=D~IT~IO~N~---------~-~- CINEMA BUILDING: -EXISTING AREA : IS,21Zl!Zl 5Q.FT. - \.A3..; 1/8' = 1' -!Zl' _ -ADDITION TO GROUND FLOOR: I,IIS 5Q.FT. SHEET -TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA: 16,315 5QFT. A2 DF 4  13~'-2' I APT21Zl6 I I APT21Zl1 I I APT21Zl8 I I APT21Z'S I 800 SF. 1015 SF. 1015 SF. 1040 SF. BEPRM-1 BEPRM-2 BEPRM-2 BEPRM-2 LIVING RM/ BEPRM-1 BEPRM-1 BEPRM-1 PINING/ KITCHEN LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ PINING/ PINING/ PINING/ KITCHEN KITCHEN KITCHEN "'t:; [] [] !21v!V 0 ~o [] r.:i ~TH pLoS. UTIL~ I ~ I ~ J) fX L___ 0 1~-~ i CLOS. : BEPRM-1 > CLOS. I - -·-·- ______ _j - [Q] [Q] APT-208 ~ I I BEPRM-1 BATrv [Q] ~ rr 01 g,~ rr---1--E..:I:.h, 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT [Q] ~ APT -21Zl1 ______ ..j I v r= LIVING RM/ LAUNDRY CENTER I PINING/ APT.21Zl6 KITCHEN I APT. 210 I LIVING RM/ I PINING/ KITCHEN DDDD1 ______ ..j I APT. 209 ~----- 830 SF. LAPT.205I D APT.21Zl!; 1-- -- 1180 SF. I I / ------..j -, APT. 211Zl : CLOS. <_, ~----- l_ ______ ~ 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT LOUNGE - EXERCISE ROOM APT. 21Zl4 ------..j I - APT. 211 rv BATH( BEPRM-1 BEPRM-2 L ____ _ p,giOIL APT. 21Zl3 2ND FLOOR RESIDENT ( t::d--t -l I STORAGE ROOMS I ------..j LIVING RM/ APT. 202 r- PINING/ ' l<; BEPRM-1 -------1 KITCHEN L APT -21Zl1 ( LAPT. 21Zl41 943 SF. LIVING RM/ PINING/ BEPRM-2 KITCHEN EJ T 0 I I v / r COl --il 11 ro I APT. 211 I 1085 SF. dl UTI __ [tj .lJ lon IL l~--1 IT~l- I ') r-- [] [ <[ L: Ill z . I= -_j o- If---it,, <Oo:i ::::::1 _J (ii Q_<[ dl LIVING RM/ U'" / L::'IL <[Ill I PINING/ ROOF BELOW / OCI ,J, LIVING RM/ BEPRM-1 / PINING/ KITCHEN / / LIVING RM/ KITCHEN BEPRM-2 / PINING/ BEPRM-2 / / KITCHEN / / / / // (}'_ 0 0 _J 12'-8' lb'-4' lL n G 0 w . <f)~ 30 ~~~~-~~S~E~C~O~N~D~F~L~O~O~R~P=LA~N~=~N=EW~~A~D~D~IT~IO~N~---------- ~-._ W-l z[Q ,~...,~ 1/6' = 1'-~· 16,13!; SQFT. SHEET A3 DF 4  135'-2' I AFT. 3~1 I I AFT. 3~81 I AFT-3~SI le>'-IZ'' I AFT. 3061 800 SF. l0l5 SF. l0l5 SF. 1040 SF. E3EDRM-I E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-2 LIVING RM/ E3EDRM-I E3EDRM-1 E3EDRM-I DINING/ KITCI-lEN LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ LIVING RM/ DINING/ KITCI-lEN A ----- ~r---, DINING/ KITCI-lEN DINING/ KITCI-lEN ,-f3, ,TI-l l~v :V IJ ±2v :v DOWN Q,l O RFAR STAIRS I D ~ [] D 1Ril cP :_i_ ~~m D ~ D,1o rTT rWA TI-l : UTIL.w? pLOs. UTIL.w? K1 ~ X FL05. 0 ~~--~ 1~-- f€ ~T [>( ~--- 0 ~--~ n-----=o_e~~/ L. . - - ( I I CLOS. ~ ~ E3EDRM-I i " ..-> CLOS. : [Q] i [Q] AFT -3~8 I > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j E3EDRM-1 - [Q] ------~ E3ATfrv f- IIC -i 121~ t:i:t-\ 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT lnll l.;::Jj AFT- 3~1 ------~ I v r=r= LIVING RM/ I I LAUNDRY CENTER AFT. 3~~ : EJ DINING/ KITCI-lEN I AFT. 31~ I I~ I LIVING RM/ I DINING/ .9 DDDD1 ------~ - 1 AFT. 3~S 830 SF. KITCI-lEN I I D AFT. 3~& r------- ' --,-.,~,...,---r~ll AFT. 3~&1 I = r- L 1180 SF. ------~ - AFT. 31~ : CLOS. <( r------- 1 L·-·-·-·-·-·-·- 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT AFT. 3~4 r _ E3EDRM-I ------~ LOUNGE - EXERCISE ROOM I AFT. 311 E3EDRM-2 L _____ _ AFT. 3~3 3RD FLOOR RESIDENT I ------~ STORAGE ROOMS LIVING RM/ AFT. 3~2 I I DINING/ I E3EDRM-I --------1 pb KITCI-lEN I_ AFT-3~1 / L AFT. 3~31 <j43 SF. r LIVING RM/ DINING/ E3EDRM-2 KITCI-lEN I AFT. 311 I 1085 SF. <[ L: n I Ill z . I -_j o- I <Oo:i ::::::1 _J I Q_<[ I L::'IL <[Ill ) OCI LIVING RM/ UP / LIVING RM/ DINING/ DINING/ KITCI-lEN E3EDRM-I ROOF BELOW / / / "'"' ~ ' ~ / KITCI-lEN E3EDRM-2 E3EDRM-I ! / LIVING RM/ E3EDRM-2 / <[ DINING/ / r:: Ill / z KITCI-lEN / / 0 < / / I- <[ ()[ I AFT. 3~31 I AFT. 3~21 AFT-3~1 I 0 0 _J tj43 SF. l50 SF. 1055 SF. lL 111>&'-l' 12'-8' 1~'-4' ~ :I . I-~ 30 lli_J z[Q - ,t-r....;.I.,...~+-T.....,H,.....IR_D----,.-F_L_O_O_R_P_L_A_N_-_ _N_E_W_A_D_D_IT_lO_N_ _ _ _ _ _ (j=. SHEET \~_.~ 118' = 1'-~' 1~,13& SQFT. A4 DF 4  Exhibit 8 July 6, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti Delivered and Received by Occhipinti at a meeting at City Hall on July 6, 2016 We have reviewed your special use application you dropped off at City Hall on June 29, 2016. This letter summarizes our understanding of your request, outlines deficiencies in your application that you must correct before your case can be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and provides you with code related requirements you should consider in your design if you wish to present a project for consideration that otherwise complies with City codes and zoning regulations. Project Understanding. Special use approval to expand a non‐conforming structure with non‐conforming parking to allow for construction of new residential uses above an existing first floor commercial theater use. Required Corrections to Application to Correct Deficiencies 1) Add Zoning classifications and boundaries to all properties surrounding your property. 2) Building setbacks from all property lines must be added to the plans. The building setback in the corner side is not shown to the outer part of the building. 3) Show location and construction details for dumpster enclosure 4) Given that parking for a theater use is based on the number of seats, the plans must graphically represent seat layout within each theater in the floorplan. If the size of the theaters has been reduced, the remaining space must be defined, and the square footage and other details must be indicated on the plans. Separate uses will require that access and exiting to the left over space be identified. Code Related Requirements Because you are proposing an expansion to a non‐conforming building with non‐conforming parking, compliance with the following requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) are required and will be evaluated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council as part of your request. You should consider revising your plans to address these code deficiencies or revising your application to ask for variations from these provisions of the UDO. 1. Parking surfaces adjacent to residential (east side) must be increased to a 10’ landscaped setback to comply with the Unified Development Ordinance. A significant portion of the parking lot is Page |1  adjacent to residential. Plans should be modified to provide the 10’ setback and landscaping. A redesign of the parking lot will likely also require modification to the lighting plan, so this plan should be revised as well. 2. The parallel parking that was added to the plans in the latest submittal does not accommodate code compliant two way traffic and will not be supported. The plans should be revised to maintain existing conditions. 3. Compliance with Article 12 needs to be taken into consideration regarding landscaping requirements. Plans will not be finalized for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission until they comply or you request variations from relevant sections of the Ordinance. Please have your Civil Engineer review the article for completeness and compliance. 5) A fence is required along the West property boundary where it abuts residential zoning. Fence details should be added to the plans. 6) Based upon our rough calculation 1,038 seats can be located within the four screening rooms. Either provide a floorplan showing the number of seats or allow us entry into the property where we can verify that 438 seats exist. 7) Does the storage use have its own doorway and considered a separate use from the code. 8) Lighting will likely get modified once the parking area is modified to account for the revised landscaping buffer. Revise lighting and photometric plans. 9) An interior side yard building setback of 30’ is required for that portion of the building adjacent to residential. It appears that part of building is not compliant with this requirement. Section 19.04(1) of the UDO provides that structures with non‐conforming setbacks can be expanded only if the expansion “conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance and does not expand any dimensional nonconformity.” Therefore, the plans may not show residential construction above with that non‐conforming setback or your application needs to request a variation from this provision of the Code pursuant to all the application requirements of 18.03. Please complete your revisions and resubmit. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, AICP, Principal Planner City of DeKalb Page |2  Exhibit 9 July 15, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti 3851 11th Street Rockford, IL 61109 Via Certified Mail and USPS Standard Delivery Dear Pete As you know, the attached letter was given to you and a woman you introduced as your wife (who was also in attendance) during a meeting with Derek Hiland and myself at Village hall on July 6, 2016. At that meeting, the general contents of the letter were discussed. Among other things, the letter outlines what City staff considers to be deficiencies in your application. Specifically, you were advised that your application did not include a request for variations that had been identified by City staff as part of your request in an effort to best advise you how to modify your application to comply with City codes. We advised you that if you requested that your application be placed on and Planning and Zoning Committee Agenda without including the identified variations, the staff recommendation would be to deny the requested special use for residential uses above first floor commercial due to the fact that your request included variations for which you did not apply. At our July 6, 2016 meeting, you also commented to us that your plans were not drawn correctly. Specifically, when we asked you about the individual size of each theater and noted that some of the theaters were different sizes, you specifically stated that each theater was exactly the same size and that if the plans looked different, they were incorrectly drawn by the person you hired to prepare the plans. You were informed then by City staff that it was important to have correct plans so that parking requirements could be accurately calculated for the special use request. At that meeting, you stated verbally that you did not intend to modify your plans to modify incorrect drawings, or to modify your special use application to include the variations identified by staff. You specifically requested that we should consider your application complete and schedule the public hearing for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Then, you came to City Hall on Monday July 11 and asked to see me and we had a meeting for about 30 minutes. At that meeting, we again discussed your application and the contents of the City’s July 6, 2016 letter. At that meeting, it was clear to me that contrary to the direction you gave at our July 6 meeting, you were reconsidering whether or not to modify your application. When I asked you whether you were going to modify your application to provides revised plans or to request one or more variations, you said you’d get back to me. Please note that based on the later July 11th meeting discussed above, the City will not consider your application complete and will therefore not schedule the public hearing until we hear from you with regard to your intent to modify your application or provide revised plans. If you revise your application or provide revised plans, City staff will need time to review these revised plans before the application is considered complete and the hearing is scheduled. If you decide to revise your application to add one or more variations, you need to complete that application, pay those fees, and comply with any additional submittal requirements outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance for variations. Finally, if you intend to proceed, please provide me with a time that City staff can inspect the interior of the structure. Given the extended vacancy within the existing structure, it is important to confirm the viability of the structure. It will also give us an opportunity to confirm parking based on use and occupancy. Please do not hesitate to contact Derek or myself if you have any questions. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner  Exhibit 10 August 18, 2016 Mr. Pete Occhipinti 3851 11th Street Rockford, IL 61109 Via Certified Mail (including large plan documents); and USPS Standard Delivery (excluding large plan documents) Dear Pete The purpose of this letter is to confirm what we discussed Tuesday, August 16, 2016 in the lobby when you stopped by. 1. You asked for a copy of the e‐mail the City received from Kevin Bunge indicating that you had retained his services to update his site plan documents. A copy of this e‐mail was provided to you this morning and is also attached to this letter. This e‐mail was forwarded to me on August 4th, after you had dropped off some documents that included plan revisions and provided me with a written request dated August 2nd to proceed with your hearing “with the paperwork (I) have”. In response to my phone message to you asking whether I was to wait for these new plans or to proceed, you left me a voice mail message on August 5th stating that you did not tell anybody to make changes to your plans and that I was to proceed with what I have. 2. Because you only dropped off two documents on August 2nd (a Survey document prepared by Survey‐Tech consisting of 1 sheet and dated August 2, 2016, and a one sheet document labeled “A2”, showing the first floor cinema layout of the first floor, but marked Second Floor Plan which is not dated or identified as to who prepared the document), I asked you to confirm what constitutes your understanding of the “paperwork I have” as requested in your August 2 letter. I went through everything I have with you this morning, and you provided direction that I should include all of it. I am forwarding for your record the documents we reviewed this morning and what you have directed we consider as part of your submittal. a. A handwritten letter from you dated August 2, 2016 asking me to proceed with the paper work I have to the Board. b. Sheet A2 of 4, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by. You told me you made revisions to this document to show walls between the four theater and areas you marked as “storage”. You further indicated that two of these walls are existing and two of these wall are proposed, although the plans do not indicate such. When I asked you to describe how these walls would meet required exiting for these spaces, you indicated that they would meet requirements, even though there are no doors shown in the walls separating the cinema areas from the “storage” areas.  c. A survey document, entitled “GKC Theatres, Inc.” prepared by Survey‐Tech, dated 8/2/16, consisting of 1 sheet. You indicated this document represents your current proposed site plan, showing the proposed layout of the parking lot and parking spaces. d. A color elevation (east side), entitled “Blackhawk Apartments at Campus Cinema”, consisting of 1 sheet, not dated and with no information as to who it was prepared by. e. A one sheet “narrative”, not dated or signed. f. A lighting and photometric plan entitled “Blackhawk Tower”, prepared by U.S. Architectural/Sun Valley Lighting, consisting of 1 sheet and dated 5/9/16. I advised you that because this plan had not been updated to be consistent with your revised site plan, the light poles as indicated on this plan would be in the middle of parking spaces and that relocating them to be consistent with your plan might change the photometric numbers. g. A document entitled “Proposed Renovation to Campus Cinema Blackhawk Apartments”, prepared by ADG Design and Services, Inc. consisting of Sheets T1, L1. A1, A2, A3, and A4, latest revision dated 6/21/16. Again, I advised you that the Site Plan on this Sheet T1 did not match your revised site plan, and that the site plan shown on proposed Landscaping Sheet L1 was not consistent and therefore did not show required landscaping on the west side of the parking lot. 3. I advised you that your request to proceed with these documents was not in your best interest because the revisions had not been reviewed by staff for code compliance, and that most of the earlier documents at a minimum were incorrect as they showed improvements that were no longer consistent with your latest site plan. You reiterated your desire to proceed with these incorrect plans. Please be advised that staff will complete a thorough review of the plan documents and will provide a report to the Plan Commission of aspects of the plan that do and don’t comply with City Codes, whether the plans address necessary standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and all inconsistencies and deficiencies between the various plan documents. Staff’s recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are based on the documents provided, so multiple code deficiencies and inconsistencies between your submitted plan documents will result in a negative recommendation by staff. Per your written request to proceed, and unless you advise me in writing no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, August 22, 2016 that you do not wish to proceed with these documents, your case will be noticed and scheduled for the September 14, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission. You are strongly encouraged to allow staff an opportunity to provide you with review comments on your latest site plan submittal and resubmit revised plan document that are at least consistent with your revised site plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully Jo Ellen Charlton, AICP, Principal Planner City of DeKalb  Exhibit 11 To: Jo Ellen Charlton, Principal Planner COD Derek Hiland, Long Range Planner From: James P. Zarek, Deputy Fire Chief Date: September 8, 2016 Re: Campus Cinema Proposal, 1015 Blackhawk Based on the plans that were submitted and looked at on September 7, 2016 the fire department has the following concerns for the project: 1. Converting parking on the Blackhawk side of the building to angle parking vs. parallel parking. By doing this it reduce the travel lane width down to 12.5 feet. Per 503.2.1 of the International Fire Code (2006) an access road shall be at least 20 foot wide. 2. The parking lot configuration at the North end of the proposed lot only was giving 12.5 feet for the parking lanes and the ends of the parking lanes. This is not enough for a fire department engine to make the turn we would need a minimum of 20 feet. The code for this requirement states that turning radius requirements are up to the fire code official. We would need a minimum of 20 feet for the lanes. 3. Because of the concept a sprinkler system would be required to be installed in the building. This would need to be installed in accordance with Chapter 9 of The International Fire Code. This also would then require an alarm system component and access for a fire department connection. 4. It is my understanding that there was walls placed in each of the four theatres effectively cutting them in half. The front half was going or was being used for the shows and the back halves were being used for storage. This presents a problem with adequate exiting from the theatres as they do not have a second means of egress. In order to accomplish the secondary exits would need to be installed in accordance with the current code. The reference code for this is Section 1014 to 1019 of the International Fire Code (2006). 5. The storage area behind the new walls will need to be evaluated for the possibility of additional code requirements. This assessment is based on the plans as submitted, which was limited in information. If additional information is presented we will need to reevaluate the proposal. Feel free to contact me if you need any further information. DeKalb Fire Department 700 Pine Street DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815.748.8460 phone www.cityofdekalb.com/DFD.htm 815.748.8497 fax www.facebook.com/dekalbfire  t:itYOf ~ eKalb opportunity . innovation SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION -- ---- - -- - - - - - --~- -- - -- - - ---- TO: City Clerk, Mayor, and City Council of the City of DeKalb, Illinois FROM: Petitioner(s): {~ {)Co{;(/n7 J Telephone: "/tJ ?~o )Cf-21 Mailing Address: · ·s gf r /r t v Fax: ----------------------------- (2. " <!.l1 Co K.l / <-~ ( (I o? Cell: --------------------------- Email: --------------------------- Petitioner's Representative: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Telephone: ------------------------ Mailing Address: ------------------------ - - Fax: ----------------------------- Cell: - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - Email: --------------------------- 1. The petitioner hereby petitions the City of DeKalb to approve a Special Use Permit for the following property: A. Legal Description and Parcel# (s): (If necessary, attach the full legal description on a separate sheet of paper) - - - - - - - - - - - / 01 r flt.-AC:« /.f.#~q Pt:= @L tf B. Street Address or Common Location: _ _.;./_O_;/ ,__f_'....:.;/t _ 4t -=VIt =-<"-'~==4=L.o =...;;./1..____ _ __ C. Size (square feet or acres): ----------------------------------------- D. Existing Zoning District: ____~ ___ c_____________________________________ E. Proposed Use and Description: On a separate piece of paper, describe the proposed use's characteristics such as operating hours , number of employees, capacity of facility, etc. Also, indicate whether or not the proposed use would : a) be in conformance with City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed use may; b) impact adjacent existing and future land uses; c) impact adjacent property values; d) impact the general public's health, safety, and welfare; and e) in conformance with all elements of the "UDO," Unified Development Ordinance . L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 1 of 1 2. The petitioner hereby submits the following information: ( ) Vicinity map of the area proposed for the special use ( ) List of current owner, and their mailing addresses, of all property within 250 feet (Exclusive of right-of-way) of the property proposed to be rezoned ( ) Petition fee ($500.00) ( ) 12 photo copies and an electronic copy on a disk of a site plan which must show the following items: __ Property dimensions _ _ Location and use of proposed structure _ _ Number and location of parking spaces and loading area _ _ Location and type of landscaping (including existing trees 6" in diameter or greater and existing tree masses __ Location, type, and height of fencing or walls __ Location and width of driveways and curb cuts ; internal traffic patterns _ _ Floor area (square footage) _ _ Location of exterior lighting _ _ Location, type, and height of signage __ Direction of storm water flow, location of detention area (Note to Petitioner: A site plan for a special use permit is intended to be a schematic plan only. All plans must eventually conform to other City standards prior to the issuance of any building permits or other permits.) 3. The petitioner hereby states that a pre-application conference was *( ) was not ( ) held with City staff prior to the submittal of this petition. *Date of pre-application conference: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Those in attendance: - - - - - - -- -- - ------------------------------- (Note to petitioner: A pre-application conference with staff is highly encouraged in order to avoid delays and to help in the timely processing of this petition .) 4. The petitioner hereby agrees that this petition will be placed on the Plan Commission's agenda only if it is completed in full and submitted in advance of established deadlines . 5. The petitioner has read and completed all of the above information and affirms that it is true and correct. L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 2 of2 -- . 6. Petitioner/property owner(s) hereby give the City of DeKalb permission to post a public notice sign(s) on the subject property. Petitioner Date Petitioner Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ 5 day of ~ , ;;) Of(:,_ __ PA~f¢ll\'l HILAND "OFF.ICIAL SEAL" ~dJcjd4niJ My Commission Expires June 20, 2019 Notary Public I hereby affirm that I am the legal owner (or authorized agent or representative of the owner- proof attached) of the subject property and authorize the petitioner to pursue this Special Use Permit petition as described above (petitioner must sign if he/she is the owner). Owner's Signature Date {d-&--- Owner's Signature Date C. Subscribed and sworn to before me - or:;;::r::::::i PATRlGb\ft HILAND •oFFICIAL SEAL" My Commission Elcplres June 20, 2019 Notary Public --------------------------------------------------------------------STAFF USE 0 NLY ----------------------------------------------------------- Planning & Development Division City Clerk Signature Is petition completed in full? _ _ yes __ no Date Received: - - - - - - - - - - - - Received by: - - - - - - - - - - - - - starnp Public Hearing Date: - - - - - - - - - - L:\PLANNING\FORMS & DOCUMENTS\P&D PETITIONS\Special Use Permit Petition.doc Page 3 of 3 ITEM &  STAFF REPORT October 7, 2016 TO: DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission RE: Request by Corral Dyn, LLC on an annexation agreement amendment and amend the PD-C Planned Development Commercial zoning of the parcels for the property located at 2115 Sycamore Road, DeKalb I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Purpose To amend the annexation authorized by the City Council pursuant to Ordinance 2016-007 to allow greater than 1/3 of the leasable space to be used for authorized non-retail uses. B. Location Generally bound by Sycamore Road, the nature trail, and a commercial development. C. Access Sycamore Road and adjacent cross access to the northern commercial property. D. Property Size 1.379 Acres E. Existing Zoning PD-C F. Existing Land Use 2 Lot planned development with 1 building on each lot including a 3,520 square foot building occupied by Delta Dental, and a 8,015 square foot spec building that is vacant. H. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North – GC General Commercial Mixed Use Retail Development South – PD-C Planned Development Commercial Retail shopping center East – PD-C Planned Development Commercial Retail shopping center West – SFR-1 & GC Single Family residential and General Commercial. Nature Trail and First National Bank building J. Comprehensive Plan Designation Commercial I. Flood Plain Designation Not in Flood Plain PZC077-16 1015 Puri Dekalb Amend PDC - SR II. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The City of DeKalb previously negotiated an annexation agreement with the property owners which thereby regulated the zoning and uses of the property. The applicant, First Midwest Group, is requesting an amendment to the annexation agreement that regulates this property in order to amend the zoning provisions that limits that amount of square footage that non-retail uses can occupy in order to accommodate a lease with ATI Physical Therapy. With Delta Dental occupying the southern 3,520 square foot building and using thirty-one (31%) percent of the total 11,535 square feet, any non-retail use greater than 325 square feet would violate the annexation agreement. ATI Physical Therapy’s plans would occupy 2,600 square feet, or fifty-three (53%) percent of the total building square footage on the site. This proposal would leave the available retail space at approximately forty-seven (47%) percent for the development. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider this annexation agreement amendment and subsequently amend (Article 20.04) the PD-C Planned Development Commercial zoning to allow greater than 1/3 of the leasable space to be used for authorized non-retail uses. III. ANALYSIS In March of this year, the City Council approved Ordinance 2016-07, which approved the following for the property at 2115 Sycamore Road:  an annexation agreement for the subject property;  annexation of the property to the City;  rezoning the property to “PD-C” Planned Development-Commercial;  approval of a preliminary plan for the commercial development, and  approval of a final development plan for the site. Section B.1.iii of Article III of the Annexation Agreement provides the following: “Professional Services Offices, such as medical office for licensed doctors or chiropractors, urgent care, dental office, legal office, optometrist/ophthalmologist, accountant, or other similar professional service-based offices (with the determination of what constitutes a similar professional office being made by the City Manager). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than 1/3 of the total proposed commercial square footage on the Property shall be permitted to be utilized for this purpose (and Professional Service Offices shall be prohibited in any areas in excess of 1/3 of such square footage on the Property). This square footage limitation shall be calculated on the basis of total square footage proposed for the Property, based upon the approved Final Plans.” The first tenant in this approved project was Delta Dental, which recently opened in the 3,520 square foot southern building on the site. This occupancy represent 31 percent of PZC077-16 1015 Puri Dekalb Amend PDC - SR Page 2 or 5 the project’s total square footage. Any non-retail use greater than 325 square feet would violate the annexation agreement’s 33 percent limitation on non-retail uses. The building shell of the larger 8,015 square foot northern building was recently completed and sits ready as speculative space for prospective tenants. The applicant has a contract with ATI Physical Therapy to occupy 2,600 square feet of the space in the northern building. If permitted, the total square footage dedicated to non-retail uses would increase from 33 percent to 53 percent. According to their website, “ATI is a nationally-recognized rehabilitation provider, specializing in research-based physical therapy, workers’ compenation rehab, employer worksite solutions, sports medicine, home health, and a variety of specialty therapies.” There are currently no ATI Physical Therapy locations within 20 miles of DeKalb. ATI’s in Sandwich and Geneva are both just over 20 miles from DeKalb. ATI is a quality tenant and would be a welcome addition to DeKalb’s business community anywhere along Sycamore Road. In exchange for the City’s consideration to allow additional non-retail uses, the applicant submitted documents indicating that they would make certain site improvements to the DeKalb Shopping Center, located just down the road at 1700 Sycamore Road. As shown in Exhibit 1, these improvements include: 1. Remove the existing substandard parking lot lighting and replace with modern LED lighting fixtures, relocating them and adding additional fixtures to more appropriately light the center. The current setup provides only .6 foot candles on average across the property, and we would propose bringing that average up to ~2 foot candles. 2. Resurfacing the entirety of the parking lot, which will provide a very noticeable improvement to the aesthetics of the center. 3. Restriping of the parking lot. This will allow us to dramatically increase the number of parking spaces available to the tenants in the center. One of the concerns that has been raised by potential tenants, including Harbor Freight, is the total parking available, especially with the adjacent bowling alley sharing the same parking field. While we currently have a number of vacancies and as a result have no issues, prospective tenants have to view the center and how it would function as a fully occupied center to ensure that there are not problems in the future. With the reconfiguration of the parking layout allowing for a more efficient parking plan, we believe we will be able to add more than 70 parking spaces. 4. Adding landscaping along E. Dresser. At some point in the past, the land located between the sidewalk and E. Dresser was paved over with asphalt. Looking at aerial photographs, this has been the case since at least 1999. As part of the parking lot work, we would remove the asphalt in that area and replace it with grass and bushes. Originally, the application provided a promise that Harbor Freight Tools would occupy space in that center. While that deal may ultimately go through, negotiations between the applicant and Harbor Freight were not proceeding expeditiously, so the applicant PZC077-16 1015 Puri Dekalb Amend PDC - SR Page 3 or 5 amended the application to remove the Harbor Freight promise. 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. 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 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. 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. 4. The proposed rezoning constitutes an expansion of an existing zoning PZC077-16 1015 Puri Dekalb Amend PDC - SR Page 4 or 5  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. 5. Adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided. Adequate utilities are provided. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While the City may not have the legal authority to approve any changes to the annexation agreement amendment by tying it to the other developer’s site at 1700 Sycamore Road the two parties have verbally shared that they both want to see the other site improved. Since the two properties cannot be connected by way of the annexation agreement the City would just have to trust the applicant would follow through with the listed improvements above. If for any reason the improvements were not completed or to the expected specifications, the City would have no legal ability to require them even if after granting the increase in non-retail uses at the 2101 - 2121 Sycamore Road site. The condition restricting not more than 33 percent of the square footage be used for non- retail uses was negotiated by the City in good faith as a means to ensure the development on the property would generate sales tax income for the City in exchange for the approvals that required exceptions to the City Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). While there are vacancies in existing spaces along Sycamore Road that may attract retail users and their retails sales tax dollars, there are no other spaces where the City can require a retail use and thereby ensure additional retail sales tax dollars. This negotiated requirement was very important to the City and is likely not negotiable. The applicant has other Sycamore Road shopping center locations that have existing vacant space where ATI could easily locate. Staff feels strongly that the remaining space in this development should be preserved for retail uses as originally intended and negotiated by the City. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the request. PZC077-16 1015 Puri Dekalb Amend PDC - SR Page 5 or 5  EXHIBIT 1 AMENDED NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Petitioner is not requesting any physical modifications to the existing Planned Development. All previously approved plans and drawings will remain as submitted. Petitioner is requesting an amendment to the annexation agreement provisions contained in Article III, which provides, in pertinent part, that no more than 1/3 of the total square footage of buildings on the property can be used for professional service offices. Petitioner has been presented with the opportunity to place a physical therapy clinic (ATI Physical Therapy) on the property that would occupy 2,600 square feet of space in the currently vacant 8,000 square foot building for which construction is finishing. This use would not otherwise be permitted due to the restrictions contained within the annexation agreement. As such, petitioner is requesting that the City of DeKalb amend the annexation agreement to allow ATI Physical Therapy. As stated in the previously submitted narrative, we have been working with Harbor Freight to occupy a portion of the space vacated by Big Lots in another of our centers in DeKalb (the DeKalb Shopping Center). Our discussions with Harbor Freight started back in March and are still progressing and are in the final stages of the lease negotiation, but we are unable to foresee whether we will be able to work out a deal and if so, when that deal will be finalized. At this point, we have a signed lease with ATI, that is contingent on the City approval, but that contingency period is ending. If we are unable to obtain the approval by the middle of November, we will have to terminate the lease and we may permanently lose ATI. ATI, like many similar national tenants, have growth quotas to fulfill before year end. In the event we are unable to work out the lease with Harbor Freight, First Midwest Group will nevertheless commit to moving forward with the following improvements to the DeKalb Shopping Center, which were planned to be completed in conjunction with the Harbor Freight deal. 1. Remove the existing substandard parking lot lighting and replace with modern LED lighting fixtures, relocating them and adding additional fixtures to more appropriately light the center. The current setup provides only .6 foot candles on average across the property, and we would propose bringing that average up to ~2 foot candles. 2. Resurfacing the entirety of the parking lot, which will provide a very noticeable improvement to the aesthetics of the center. 3. Restriping of the parking lot. This will allow us to dramatically increase the number of parking spaces available to the tenants in the center. One of the concerns that has been raised by potential tenants, including Harbor Freight, is the total parking available, especially with the adjacent bowling alley sharing the same parking field. While we currently have a number of vacancies and as a result have no issues, prospective tenants have to view the center and how it would function as a fully occupied center to ensure that there are not problems in the future. With the reconfiguration of the parking layout allowing for a more efficient parking plan, we believe we will be able to add more than 70 parking spaces. 4. Adding landscaping along E. Dresser. At some point in the past, the land located between the sidewalk and E. Dresser was paved over with asphalt. Looking at aerial photographs, this has been the case since at least 1999. As part of the parking lot work, we would remove the asphalt in that area and replace it with grass and bushes.  Street Side Front Door Front Door Street side Front Door Street side Tentative Building Design  KC PLANTING NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ( CONTRACTOR) SHALL VISIT THE SITE, INSPECT EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REVIEW PROPOSED PLANTINGS AND RELATED WORK. IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLAN AND PLANT LIST, PLAN SHALL GOVERN QUANTITIES. (5) AH PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL ON-SITE UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION ON HIS/HER CROSS SECTION 1 (IF REQUIRED BY DPD) PHASE OF WORK. ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE, AND CABLEVISION MAY BE LOCATED BY CALLING J.U.L.I.E. (1 - 800 - 892 - 0123). ANY DAMAGE OR INTERRUPTION TO SERVICES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL RELATED ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER TRADES ON THE JOB AND SHALL REPORT 2,500 s.f. ANY UNACCEPTABLE JOB CONDITIONS TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH THE WORK. BL (4) AM (10) BB 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APPLICATION AND COST OF ALL NECESSARYBUILDING PERMITS AND CODE (9) DY SM VERIFICATIONS. SUBMIT COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS TO OWNER. CM BW 4. ALL SHRUB BEDS AND TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A CONTINUOUS 4" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK RM MULCH. ALL GROUND COVER AND PERRENIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 1" LAYER OF MULCH. ALL DECIDUOUS RO TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3' DIAMETER CIRCLE OF 4" MULCH. ALL EVERGREEN TREES SHALL BE MULCHED TO BF THE DRIP LINE. BE PP 5. PERENNIAL AND GROUND COVER BEDS SHALL BE AMENDED WITH A 2" LAYER OF MUSHROOM COMPOST, TILLED TO A BS DEPTH OF 6", RAKED SMOOTH, FERTILIZED WITH COMMERCIAL 10-6-4 FERTILIZER AT A RATE OF 25 LBS PER 1000 SF., SP PLANTED, COVERED WITH 1" SHREDDED MULCH, AND WATERED. BL LB 6. EDGE ALL SHRUB BEDS THAT ABUT LAWN WITH EDG-KING BRAND PLASTIC OR APPROVED EQUAL. EDGING TO BE INSTALLED WITH HORIZONTAL STEEL STAKES AT 36" SPACING. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS IN ARE RO AREAS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. PROVIDE MANUFACTURED JOINTS AND 90 DEGREE FITTINGS AT ALL CORNERS. YT 7. THE TOPSOIL CONDITIONS FOR THIS PROJECT SITE ARE AS FOLLOWS: CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE AND FINISH GRADE TOPSOIL SUPPLIED BY OTHERS TO THE DEPTHS IN PLANTING AND LAWN AREAS. ( PLANTING AREAS 12 INCHES, LAWN AREAS 6 INCHES) CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ORNAMENTAL BERMS IN LOCATIONS AND IN SHAPES AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. CONTOUR INDICATED REPRESENT A 1'-0" CONTOUR INTERVAL. BERMS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF TOPSOIL. 0" 8. GUARANTEE OF PLANTS FOR ONE (1) YEAR SHALL BEGIN AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILTIES FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING WATERING, CULTIVATING, WEEDING, 215' MULCHING AND SPRAYING AS NECESSARY TO KEEP PLANTS FREE OF INSECTS AND IN A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS CONDITION FOR A PERIOD OF (1) YEAR FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE WITHOUT COST TO OWNER, ANY - DEAD OR UNACCEPTABLE PLANTS, AS DETERMINED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE DURING AND AT THE END OF THE BL ONE YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD. ST CROSS SECTION 8 9. SOD TO BE WELL ESTABLISHED MINERAL TYPE GROWTH. NO PEAT SOD WITH BE ALLOWED. SOD GRASSES SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING BLUEGRASS TYPES; 55% BARRONS, 15 MAJESTIC, 15% ADELPHI, 15% GLADE. SOD PIECES ARE TO FIT TIGHTLY TOGETHER SO THAT NO JOINTS ARE VISIBLE. ALTERNATE AND STAGGER COURSES AND TAMP OR ROLL FIRMLY. DUMPSTER ALL SODDED LAWN AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZER AT FIRST CUTTING WITH A 15-40-5 ANALYSIS FERTILIZER, AT A RATE OF (3) AB ENCLOSURE 6LBS PER 1000 SF. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE SHALL APPLY TO ALL SODDED AREAS. SM SEE SHEET L1.1 CM FOR DETAILS 10. ACCEPTANCE OF GRADING AND SOD SHALL BE BY OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE BW RESPONSIBILITIES FOR A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS OR UNTIL SECOND CUTTING, WHICHEVER IS LONGER. MAINTENANCE RM SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING, REPLACEMENT OF WASH-OFFS AND ANY OTHER OPERATIONS NECESSARY RO TO KEEP THE LAWN IN THRIVING CONDITION. UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER, THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME Revisions HB BF ALL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. ST BE PP 11. ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION WITHIN THE SITE SHALL MEET APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MOST CURRENT BS VERSION OF THE USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN AND HORTUS III. SP VB LB 12. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SOURCED FROM NURSERIES LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS / CHICAGO AREA -0 OR WITHIN 100 MILES FROM THE PROJECT SITE. BL " ST -0 10 13. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY AND GROWING CONDITION. FERTILIZATION, CULTIVATION, " ' PRUNING, WEEDING, AND WATERING SHALL BE CARRIED OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS. 65 ' 14. DEAD OR DYING PLANTS SHALL BE REMOVED PROMPTLY AND REPLACED AS SOON AS WEATHER CONDITIONS PERMIT. 15. ALL PLANTINGS ARE TO BE WATERED AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY GROWING CONDITIONS. PROPOSED 16. ALL LAWN SHALL BE KEPT NEAT AND MOWED TO A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN HEIGHT. PRIVACY FENCE (IF REQUIRED 17. SPECIES OR SIZES MAY NOT BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY PRIOR TO DELIVERY. BY DPD) 18. CITY SHALL BE PROVIDED 48 HOUR NOTICE PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO CONFIRM QUALITY AND SIZE OF MATERIAL TO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BE INSTALLED. Checked by 0" Drawn by BL CROSS SECTION 15 HR HR 10'- PLANTING SCHEDULE AND SEEDING LIST (3) PD MARK COMMON NAME PLANTING QUANT. SIZE BOTANICAL NAME copyright 2013 Helmuth Redschlag - Architect AM ARMSTRONG MAPLE 7 2 1/2" DIA. "ACER RUBRUM" EACH (BURLAP 385 s.f. ROOTBALL) (1) AM (4) BB DY DENSE YEW EVERGREEN SHRUB EACH 14 18"-24" DIA (2) DY "TAXUS X MEDIA DENSIFORMIS" (BUCKETED) 0 " -0 " CBB CHI BURNING BUSH ORN. SHRUB EACH 20 18"-24" DIA ' - "EUONYMUS ALATUS" (BUCKETED) 6 0 15 636 Garfield Avenue 0' BL BIG BLUESTEM 440 1 GALLON 12" CENTERS CROSS SECTION 18 43 "ANDROPOGON GEARDII" (BUCKETED) '- HB HACKBERRY 1 4" CALIBER 0" ham3600@sbcglobal.net EACH "CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS" 0" Rockford, Illinois 61103 PD PAGODA DOGWOOD 4 7'-8' EACH (1) PD 10 "CORNUS ALTENIFOLIA" SM '- CM RED OSIER DOGWOOD 53 24" - 36" BW RO 3' CENTERS RM 1,500 s.f. "CORNUS SERICA" RO (3) AM 815 - 262 - 6270 BF (8) BB 10 YT YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD 3' CENTERS 53 24" - 36" BE (6) DY '- "CORNUS SERICA FLAVIRAMEA " PP BS 0" AH AMERICAN HAZELNUT MULTISTEM EACH 5 5' - 6' SP "CORYLUS AMERICANA" LB KC KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 1 4" CALIBER EACH "GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS" AB AMERICAN BLACK ELDERBERRY 3 24" X 36" EACH "SAMBUCUS CANADENSIS " ST STEEPLEBUSH, MEADOWSWEET 18" X 24" EACH 38 - 42 "SPIREA TOMENTOSA" VB VIBURNUM 13 36" X 48" EACH "VIBERNUM LENTAGO " SM SWAMP MILKWEED EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA " SPACED CM COMMON MILKWEED EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "ASCLEPIAS SYIACA" SPACED BW BUTTERFLY WEED EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA " SPACED SO SIDE OATS GRAMA EVENLY 46 3" PLUG RECREATIONAL PATH SPACED "BOUTELUA CURTIPENDULA " PROPERTY LINE BS BOTTLEBRUSH SEDGE EVENLY 46 3" PLUG CAREX HYSTERICINA " SPACED LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT - DeKALB, ILLINOIS RETAINING WALL PLAN AND DETAILS TYPICAL 1 - 8 CROSS SECTION PP PALE PURPLE CORNFLOWER "ECHINA PALLIDA " EVENLY SPACED 46 3" PLUG SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" RM RATTLESNAKE MASTER EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "ERYINIGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM " SPACED AREA SHOWN RO ROUGH OXEYE EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "HELIOPSIS HELIANTLAIDES " SPACED OR AS DIRECTED 6' - 0" BF BLUE FLAG EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "IRIS VERSICOLOR " SPACED BE BLACK-EYED SUSAN EVENLY 46 3" PLUG RECREATIONAL PATH SPACED "RUBECKIA FULGIDA " PROPERTY LINE LB LITTLE BLUESTEM EVENLY 46 3" PLUG "SCHIZADYRIU, SCOPARIUM " SPACED TYPICAL 8 - 15 CROSS SECTION SEED MIX FOR COVER CROP AT THE FOLLOWING POUNDS PER ACRE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SWAMP MILKWEED "ASCLEPIAS INCARNATA " 1 LB / ACRE OUTSIDE (EXPOSED) FACE - 3/4" ROUGH-SAWN CEDAR COMMON MILKWEED "ASCLEPIAS SYIACA " 1 LB / ACRE SITE LOCATION MAP INSIDE FRAMING - TREATED 2 X 4 GIRTS @ 24" O.C. WITH TREATED 6 X 6 POSTS @ 8'-0" O.C. SET IN 4' - 0" BUTTERFLY WEED "ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA " 1 LB / ACRE CAST-IN PLACE CONCRETE PIER FOOTING EXTENDING BELOW FROST LINE. SIDE OATS GRAMA "BOUTELUA CURTIPENDULA " 5 LB / ACRE Project number DATE: 02.23.16 02.22.16 BOTTLEBRUSH SEDGE "CAREX HYSTERICINA " .5 LB / ACRE PALE PURPLE CORNFLOWER "ECHINA PALLIDA " .5 LB / ACRE Date RATTLESNAKE MASTER "ERYINIGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM " .5 LB / ACRE RECREATIONAL PATH ROUGH OXEYE "HELIOPSIS HELIANTLAIDES " .5 LB / ACRE PROPERTY LINE 2/24/2016 8:28:42 AM "IRIS VERSICOLOR " PRIVACY FENCE DETAIL BLUE FLAG BLACK-EYED SUSAN "RUBECKIA FULGIDA " .5 LB / ACRE .5 LB / ACRE L1.0 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" TYPICAL 15 - 18 CROSS SECTION LITTLE BLUESTEM "SCHIZADYRIU, SCOPARIUM " 15 LB / ACRE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" of EXTERIOR VIEW - PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ASSEMBLY EXPIRES : 11.30.16 Scale As indicated  SITE N LOCATION MAP PD C Planned Development Commercial Zoning Zoning Exhibit I NG ER V I L E NG I N E CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 DeKalb Nelson Vet Preliminary Site Plan (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: JAB DATE: 8/5/15 DATE: 8/5/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg  SITE N LOCATION MAP Dumpster Location 75 .98 Gross Floor Area: 11,535 Building Coverage Percentage: 19.2% Gross Agreage: 2.124 Net Acreage: 1.379 Off Street Parking: 64 spaces Required Off Street Parking: Varies based on use. Lot Coverage: 69% I NG E ER V I L E NG I N CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 DeKalb Nelson Vet Preliminary Grading Plan (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: JAB DATE: 8/5/15 DATE: 8/5/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg  SITE N LOCATION MAP I NG ER V I L E NG I N E CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 PURI DEKALB SUBDIVISION CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: JAB DATE: 8/5/15 DATE: 8/5/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\support\3708 BASE_PLAT LAYOUT.dwg  N TYPICAL 1-8 CROSS SECTION TYPICAL 8-15 CROSS SECTION I NG ER V I L E NG I N E CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 TYPICAL 15-18 CROSS SECTION DeKalb Nelson Vet Cross sections (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: JAB DATE: 8/5/15 DATE: 8/5/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg  Existing Proposed x x G G OHE OHE N UGE UGE E E OHT OHT UGT UGT FO FO T W W W S S S S SITE I NG E ER V I L E NG I N CI G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:30:47 PM, 1:1  N I NG E ER V I L ENG I N CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 Puri DeKalb Subdivision Existing Conditions Demo (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:30:55 PM, 1:1  N I NG E ER V I L ENG I N 18" CI 6" 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 Puri DeKalb Subdivision Overall Utility Plan (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:00 PM, 1:1  N SF SF I NG E ER V I L ENG I N CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 Puri DeKalb Subdivision Grading & Erosion Control Plan (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:03 PM, 1:1  N TYPICAL 1-8 CROSS SECTION TYPICAL 8-15 CROSS SECTION I NG E ER V I L ENG I N CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 TYPICAL 15-18 CROSS SECTION Puri DeKalb Subdivision Cross sections (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:08 PM, 1:1  N SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Horizontal 1" = 5'-0" Vertical I NG E ER V I L E NG I N CI Puri DeKalb Subdivision Entrance Profile IDOT Permit Log: L-14657 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg 6 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:10 PM, 1:1  I NG E ER V I L E NG I N CI Puri DeKalb Subdivision Details 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg 7 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:12 PM, 1:1  I NG E ER V I L E NG I N CI Puri DeKalb Subdivision Details 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg 8 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:19 PM, 1:1  9 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:25 PM, 1:1  10 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:31 PM, 1:1  11 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:35 PM, 1:1  12 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:41 PM, 1:1  13 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:45 PM, 1:1  PURI DEKALB SUBDIVISION SITE DETENTION CALCS N PURI DEKALB SUBDIVISION PARKING LOT DETENTION CALCS I NG E ER V I L ENG I N CI 700 WEST LOCUST ST., BELVIDERE, IL 61008 (815)-547-8435 FAX:(815)-544-0421 ILLINOIS DESIGN FIRM NO. 184-001260 Puri DeKalb Subdivision Drainage Overlay (IDOT Permit Log: L-14657) CHECKED BY: KCB DRAWN BY: APD DATE: 12/14/15 DATE: 12/14/15 G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg G:\FILES\DEKALB COUNTY\DEKALB\3708 DeKalb Nelson\Current Project\3708 BASE_grading1.dwg, 1/8/2016 2:31:52 PM, 1:1  Luminaire Locations Location Aim No. Label X Y Z MH Orientation Tilt X Y Z 876638. 1924660 876638. 1924659 1 A 27.00 27.00 180.00 0.00 0.00 00 .00 00 .00 876547. 1924702 876553. 1924696 2 A 27.00 27.00 133.18 15.00 0.00 60 .00 90 .00 876505. 1924658 876506. 1924657 3 A 27.00 27.00 133.18 0.00 0.00 10 .00 00 .00 876400. 1924530 876408. 1924530 4 A 27.00 27.00 88.20 15.00 0.00 40 .00 90 .00 876580. 1924516 876577. 1924524 5 A 27.00 27.00 336.61 15.00 0.00 40 .00 00 .00 876462. 1924619 876463. 1924618 6 A 27.00 27.00 133.18 0.00 0.00 40 .00 30 .00 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Label Quantity Manufacturer Catalog Number Description Lamp Number Filename Lumens Per Lamp Light Loss Factor Wattage 0.0 0.0 Lamps 6 RAB LIGHTING, INC. ALED4T150 - CAST FINNED METAL SIX WHITE MULTI-CHIP 6 itl79629.ies 2389.636 1 155.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 RWLED4T150 - HOUSING, 6 CIRCUIT LIGHT EMITTING RWLED4T150SF - BOARDS EACH WITH 1 DIODES (LEDS), 2 LEDS WPLED4T150 (TYPE IV) LED, MOLDED 2-PIECE TILTED 56-DEGREES 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 PLASTIC REFLECTOR FROM VERTICAL BASE- WITH SPECULAR FINISH UP POSITION AND AND 1 APERTURE PER CANTED 18-DEGREES 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 LED, CLEAR FLAT GLASS FROM STRAIGHT LENS IN CAST GRAY AHEAD, 2 LEDS TILTED 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 PAINTED METAL LENS 57-DEGREES FROM A FRAME. VERTICAL BASE-UP POSITION AND CANTED 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 16-DEGREES FROM STRAIGHT AHEAD, 2 LEDS TILTED 57- 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 DEGREES FROM VERTICAL BASE-UP 0.2 0.3 0.9 2.0 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 POSITION AND CANTED Note 22-DEGREES FROM STRAIGHT AHEAD. 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.8 3.9 4.5 4.2 3.7 3.0 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 1. INTERSECTION TO AND INCLUDING CROSSWALK 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 3.0 4.2 4.9 4.8 3.9 3.2 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.1 4.5 4.6 3.9 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.2 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 Avg/Min 0.6 1.4 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Avg/Max Min/Max Min/Avg Max/Avg UG CV 0.6 1.7 3.5 4.5 4.7 4.4 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 Calc Zone #1 2.0 fc 7.7 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A 0.3:1 0.00 0.00 3.85 -1.0 0.69 0.6 1.4 3.5 5.8 6.4 6.1 5.2 4.4 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 3.3 4.3 5.4 5.9 5.0 3.9 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.1 2.5 4.7 6.5 7.7 6.7 5.9 4.9 4.2 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.4 3.2 4.2 5.3 6.5 7.3 6.1 4.8 3.6 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.7 3.3 4.9 6.3 6.8 7.1 6.1 5.1 4.2 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.6 3.3 4.2 5.3 6.2 7.0 5.9 4.8 3.7 2.8 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.5 2.4 3.5 4.8 5.5 6.0 6.2 5.9 4.8 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.9 5.9 6.2 5.6 4.4 3.5 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.2 4.7 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.4 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.7 4.4 5.0 5.3 4.8 4.1 3.3 2.7 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.6 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 2.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 3.0 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 2.5 5.1 6.6 6.5 5.8 5.0 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.7 3.7 5.4 6.9 7.3 6.2 5.5 4.6 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.0 2.3 3.7 5.1 6.0 6.4 6.2 5.4 4.5 3.8 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 1.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.0 5.5 5.4 4.1 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.6 4.0 4.5 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.6 2.7 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 DEKALB DEVELOPMENT 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 0.4 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 0.6 1.7 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.2 1.7 0.8 2.2 3.2 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.1 2.4 1.7 0.9 2.7 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.3 2.9 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.2 2.3 1.6 0.9 2.9 4.4 4.7 4.3 3.6 3.0 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.6 4.0 3.2 1.9 0.9 0.8 2.4 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.1 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.4 3.8 2.7 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 1.8 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.2 2.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Plan View Scale - 1" = 25' Designer F. GALLAGHER Date 1/13/2016 Scale Not to Scale Drawing No. 212127 Summary METRIC 1 of 1  TYPICAL BOLLARD DETAIL DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE CORNER DETAIL @ 4'-0" NTS NTS DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE FOUNDATION PLAN DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE PLAN Revisions NTS NTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Drawn by Checked by HR HR copyright 2013 Helmuth Redschlag - Architect DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE CORNER DETAIL @ 2'-0" NTS 636 Garfield Avenue ham3600@sbcglobal.net Rockford, Illinois 61103 815 - 262 - 6270 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE GATE ELEVATION DETAIL NTS LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT - DeKALB, ILLINOIS DUMPSTER AND RETAINING WALL DETAILS Project number 02.22.16 Date 2/24/2016 8:29:28 AM DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE WALL DETAIL L1.1 NTS of Scale ITEM &  City of DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Rep Supplemental Report DATE: October 7, 2016 for the October 12, 2016 Meeting TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members SUBJECT: Zoning Board of Appeals Case Number PZC 10-2016; Illini Tire 1031Lincoln Highway I. GENERAL INFORMATION: Overview The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) opened and continued the public hearing for this case at their September 28, 2016 meeting. At that meeting, the applicant submitted new documentation displaying the ability for a truck to maneuver around the southwest corner of the building without encroaching over the property line onto the pedestrian sidewalk. The PZC continued the public hearing to their October 12, 2016 meeting with direction to staff to further evaluate the following: 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. Analysis Staff met with the applicant, Adam Del Muro, on site on the morning of October 4, 2016. The orange cones were set up on the marked corners, with some additional cones inserted between the cones to represent the straight lines between the marked corners. PZC078-16 1031 W. Lincoln Hwy - Illini Tire SUPStaff ReportUpdatedAfterContinued Staff video-taped Adam driving his truck in both directions. In both instances, he was able to maneuver on the property without projecting beyond the cones. This video will be played for the PZC at the meeting Staff then further discussed the alternatives for accommodating the separation and learned that Adam’s research in the cost of providing bollards encouraged him to reconsider the provision of a new curb on or near the property line, with the addition of landscaping between the new curb and the existing sidewalk. The new curb line would roughly follow the property line as marked by the orange painted property corners as shown in the picture below. The asphalt pavement between the property line and the line of the sidewalk would be removed and replaced with dirt and Stop Curb at this point landscaped. It was decided that it would be a priority to provide this separation along the Annie Glidden Road section, stopping at the area near the fire hydrant and the newer cross walk pavement as Property Corner Marked with shown in the picture below. Orange Paint Pavement to be removed and replaced with landscaping This is the critical area that requires protection. A similar treatment along the Lincoln Highway section is also warranted, but could be scheduled later if costs were a factor, given that some of that area would be protected with the wheel stops that will be installed at the end of the parking spaces as being recommended in the conditions of approval. The applicant also believes improving both PZC078-2016 | PZC-10-2016 PAGE 2 sides would better balance the look of the corner and is requesting cost estimates for completing both sides. The green area in the picture on the below represents the general location east of the crosswalk (along Lincoln Highway) that would represent Phase 2 of the owners improvement to provide better separation and create a more balanced appearance on the corner. The curb would be placed roughly on the right side of the green area, along the existing parking space striping, with the balance of the pavement removed and landscaped up to the line of the existing sidewalk. The applicant has stated that he would like to accomplish this improvement up front if he can fund it, but has asked he be given up to two years to complete this work on the east side of the cross walk. Staff does not object to this request given the condition requiring the installation of wheel stops at the end of the parking spaces to prevent encroachment of the front of cars over the sidewalk. As of Friday, the applicant had not yet received confirmation on bids he was seeking to determine costs of the work described above. He is hopeful that the quote will come back and that he could proceed with improvements on both sides of the corner cross walk. The condition is written to provide the two year option on the east side along Lincoln Highway in case he needs that time. PZC078-2016 | PZC-10-2016 PAGE 3 Another issue that was discussed at the hearing was a condition recommended in the initial sample motion that limited the parking of inoperable vehicles on the site for more than 24 hours in order to accommodate situations beyond the owner’s control. Staff recommends increasing this time frame to 96 hours, and the sample motion has been amended to reflect this recommendation. The standards and findings are provided below for the PZC’s consideration and incorporation into the motion. Standards for Special Use and Findings 1. The proposed special use complies with all provisions of the applicable district regulations. The proposed special use operation can be allowed and regulated in compliance with all use regulations of the UDO. The site, however, is characterized by building and pavement setback non-conformities, and there are elements of the site’s design that do not conform to existing regulations. In an effort to allow for the continued viability of this business site, some accommodations can be made as long as basic life safety requirements can be addressed. 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 granting of the special use for this business will have no detrimental impact on the value of other property in the neighborhood given that the use has been in operation successfully over the years. 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 (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 granting of the special use for this business will not dominate the neighborhood PZC078-2016 | PZC-10-2016 PAGE 4  4. Adequate utility, drainage and other such necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The site is already provided with adequate utilities, drainage and other public services. 5. 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 operation of the use as it exists today is NOT consistent with good planning practice, as it accommodates a potential dangerous interaction between pedestrians and vehicles. This situation, however, can be addressed with a condition that provides a physical separation between the cars and the sidewalk. The applicant is currently exploring the costs of installing a curb along the property line and removing and replacing the pavement between the curb and the sidewalk with landscape area. This is an acceptable barrier between the cars and the pedestrian. The area along Annie Glidden Road is a priority and should be installed immediately, while the area along Lincoln Highway can be a secondary priority given there is separation provided by the installation of wheel stops. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s request to have up to two years to finalize the curb/landscaping work along that area. Summary and Recommendation The PZC continued this case with direction to staff to evaluate whether turning movements around the southwest corner of the building could be accommodated without encroaching over the property line. Staff confirmed on site with the applicant that this could occur. Further conversations with the applicant resulted in his agreement that he would prefer the installation of curbing along his property line and removal and replacement of pavement between his property line and the sidewalk with landscaping. He anticipates receiving quotes for this work soon, and intends to perform the work on both sides of the crosswalk, however he is asking for flexibility to have up to two years to do the work along Lincoln Highway if he needs to spread costs out. Staff recommends approval subject to the operational conditions listed in the following sample motion: Based on the submitted petition and testimony presented, I move that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings of fact outlined in the October 7, 2016 PZC078-2016 | PZC-10-2016 PAGE 5 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: 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 shall be installed within 30 days of occupancy. The curbing along Lincoln Highway shall be installed within two years of the date of occupancy. 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. The Plan Commission’s full motion, including its findings of fact, will be forwarded to the City Council in the form of a memo from Chair Atherton. PZC078-2016 | PZC-10-2016 PAGE 6