Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES CITY OF DEKALB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 17, 2018 The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Meeting on October 17, 2018 at the City of DeKalb Municipal Building, 200 S. Fourth St., DeKalb, Illinois. Chair Christina Doe called the meeting order at 6:03 PM. A. ROLL CALL Recording Secretary, Christine Wang, called the roll. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were Chair Christina Doe, Katharina Barbe, Vicki Buckley, and David Castro. Commissioners Jerry Wright and Max Maxwell were absent. City staff present were Principal Planner, Dan Olson, Community Development Director, Jo Ellen Charlton, City Attorney, Dean Frieders, and Recording Secretary, Christine Wang. B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Additions/Deletions) Chair Christina Doe requested a motion to approve the October 17, 2018 agenda as presented. Ms. Barbe motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Ms. Buckley seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 19, 2018 – Ms. Buckley motioned to approve the minutes, Ms. Barbe seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Open Floor to Anyone Wishing to Speak on Record) None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing – Amendment to the City of DeKalb 2005 Comprehensive Plan to approve a sub-area plan for the neighborhoods located in the northwest corner of the City along both sides of Annie Glidden Road – Annie Glidden North (AGN) Revitalization Plan. Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton provided an overview of the Annie Glidden North (AGN) Revitalization Plan and the identified needs for the community. Ms. Charlton noted that the task force identified by the Mayor Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 15 and City Council and the consultant hired by the City, Camiros, had numerous meetings with members of the community. She mentioned the feedback taken was used to formulate the plan as presented. Ms. Charlton noted that there were forty-five total projects, broken into four categories of Transportation, Infrastructure, and Open Space; Community Services; Neighborhood Safety and Security; and Housing and Commercial Development. Ms. Charlton stated that the need for a public hearing on the Plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required because it is considered a sub-area plan and would be adopted as an amendment to the City’s 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Charlton also stated that if the Plan is adopted, only the parts of 2005 Comprehensive Plan that are in conflict to specific elements of the AGN Plan would be amended. Ms. Charlton noted that there were ten key projects identified by the task force that were most important to the AGN area. Ms. Charlton noted that these recommendations were establishing a food and education center; the creation of a Community Development Corporation (CDC); safety improvements; local transportation improvements; the creation of a Community Center Program; access to health care; creation of a Hillcrest/Blackhawk Focus Area; physical improvements to the Greek Row Area; creation of a Lucinda Focus Area; and a redesign of Welsh Park. Ms. Charlton said that the public comment period is open until October 19, 2018 and the public comment meeting held at University Village on October 10, 2018 was well attended. Ms. Charlton stated that the attendees at the meeting noted the Safe Streets Initiative has had an impact on crime in the nearby area. Ms. Charlton also noted she attended the Northern Illinois University Student Association Senate and they expressed their concerns about safety and continued integration of students in the planning and implementation process. Ms. Charlton stated that both groups were concerned that this plan may be used as a tool for gentrification. Ms. Charlton stated that any public comments regarding the AGN plan will be collected and given to City Council to consider. Chair Doe opened to public comment. Herb Rubin of 131 E. Alden Place said that he chaired the AGN Task Force and there was great community discussion and feedback. He also stated that the plan is to be utilized as a list of projects that would be helpful for the neighborhood and if a project receives funding, that project will move forward. Mr. Rubin said that what happens in the AGN neighborhood reflects the reputation of the community and of the university, and that while the focus is on AGN, the improvement of this specific community will benefit the entire City. Bessie Chronopoulos of 423 Gayle Ave stated that this project is ambitious, and echoed Mr. Rubin’s comments that the improvement of AGN will help the entire community. Ms. Chronopoulos stated that another look should be taken Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 3 of 15 at the 2005 Comprehensive Plan and the UDO and that these should be tweaked to prevent any adverse effects. David Hedin of 1151 Fox Hollow said that the problems in the AGN neighborhood are not restricted to the lowering of NIU’s enrollment. He stated that he was not asked for input and his neighbors were not contacted regarding the Plan. Mr. Hedin stated that it was important to not only ask the residents of AGN for input, but also the people who live adjacent to the neighborhood. Commissioner Castro said that in previous discussions he highlighted the need to look at the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he is a member of the AGN Task Force and noted that 25% of the population of DeKalb lives in the AGN corridor study area. He said that this Plan not only impacts the AGN community, but also the entire City. He stated that though the AGN Plan is not perfect, it is a good document and he is in support of approval. Commissioner Barbe said that the Plan was well-written and commented that the use of similar communities helped to provide context for laypersons. Chair Doe stated that the Plan was well-written and well-constructed and easy for a layperson to understand. She said the Plan is a good start and thanked everyone who participated in the AGN Task Force and in the City for their work in the creation of the Plan. Chair Doe gave one more opportunity for the public to speak. There was none, and the public hearing was closed. Chair Doe asked if the Commissioners had any more questions or comments. There was none. Mr. Castro made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the City of DeKalb 2005 Comprehensive Plan to approve the Annie Glidden North (AGN) Revitalization Plan dated October 2018. Seconded by Ms. Buckley. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. 2. Public Hearing – Petition by the City of DeKalb for text amendments to Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance” of the Municipal Code to amend Article 5.14 “RC-1” Residential Conservation District of the UDO to establish a procedure and criteria for allowing single family attached dwellings having a common wall along a lot line be permitted with the approval of a special use permit. Principal Planner Dan Olson went through the staff report dated October 12, 2018 and stated the reason for the text amendment is to establish a procedure Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 4 of 15 and criteria in the “RC-1” Residential Conservation District to allow single family attached dwellings having a common wall along a lot line be permitted with the approval of a special use permit. He stated this procedure currently exists in the Two-Family Residential District and the Multiple Family Residential District. Mr. Olson stated that when the RC-1 District was created in 2007, this procedure was possibly overlooked. The proposed amendments set forth certain criteria for qualifying properties if a special use permit were to be submitted. Chair Doe opened to public comment. There was none. Ms. Buckley asked if a duplex is considered as a single-family dwelling. Mr. Olson responded that there were two dwelling units in a duplex. Mr. Castro asked for clarification on the extent of the areas in the City zoned RC-1. Mr. Olson responded that there are two areas of the City that are currently zoned as RC-1, including to the north and south of the downtown. Mr. Castro asked what properties around the RC-1 district may be affected by this text amendment. Mr. Olson stated that are some duplexes in the RC-1 district that would qualify for this type of procedure, and other districts (TFR and MFR) already have this procedure. Mr. Castro asked what can be done to ensure that this procedure works for everyone. Mr. Olson responded that this is a special use permit and that there are extensive criteria that need to be adhered to. Chair Doe asked for clarification regarding a statement in the proposed amendment that an “Owners Association shall be created.” Mr. Olson responded that the two separate owners of the duplex would have to create an Owner’s Association that would cover how things are maintained in terms of the common wall and other provisions. Chair Doe asked who would monitor that. Mr. Olson stated that the document would have to be reviewed by the City and recorded, however it would be a private agreement between the two parties. Chair Doe gave one more opportunity for the public to speak. There was none, and the public hearing was closed. Chair Doe asked for further questions/comments by Commissioners. There were none. Ms. Barbe motioned based upon the submitted petition and testimony presented to recommend to City Council approval of text amendments to Chapter 23 “Unified Development Ordinance” of the Municipal Code to Amend Article 5.14 “RC-1” Residential Conservation District of the UDO to establish a procedure and criteria for allowing single family attached dwellings having a common wall along a lot line be permitted with the approval of a special use permit as indicated on Exhibit A of the staff report. Seconded by Mr. Castro. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 5 of 15 yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. 3. Public Hearing – Petition by Fant Family, LLC, represented by Gary Lothson, for a special use permit to allow the resubdivision of a “RC-1” Residential Conservation 1 zoned lot into two single-family attached lots located at 801- 803 S. 2nd St; Final Plat of Fant’s First Division. Gary Lothson of 17852 S. First St said that the Fant’s, who own a two-family duplex lot on the subject site would like to divide the lot into two single-family- attached zero-lot-line lots. Mr. Olson went over the staff report dated October 12, 2018 and stated the proposed special use complies with all provisions of the application regulations off the RC-1 District. He added the proposed resubdivision would create two lots that will meet the 25-foot minimum lot width and the 3,500 square-foot minimum lot size requirements of the RC-1 District. Mr. Olson stated that the proposed special use is compatible with the residential uses found in the surrounding neighborhood and will not dominate the immediate area. Mr. Olson noted a nearby resident, Alberta Berkes of 726 S 2nd Street, contacted the City and indicated her support for the proposal. He noted the owner also obtained several signatures from neighbors indicating their support of the request and they are provided in the Commissioner’s packet. Chair Doe gave one more opportunity for the public to speak. There was none, and the public hearing was closed. Chair Doe asked if the Commissioners had any more questions or comments. Mr. Castro asked for clarification regarding the reference to the City Attorney’s “review” in item 1 in Exhibit A. It was noted the language should be to “approve” instead of “review”. Mr. Castro made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of a special use permit to allow the resubdivision of a “RC-1” Residential Conservation District zoned lot into two single-family attached lots in accordance with Article 5.14.07 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the property located at 801-803 S. 2nd St. and approval of the Final Plat of Fant’s Second Division dated June 12, 2018 subject to the conditions as indicated on Exhibit A of the staff report. Seconded by Ms. Barbe. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 6 of 15 4. Public Hearing – Petition by Fant Family, LLC, represented by Gary Lothson, for a special use permit to allow the resubdivision of a “TFR” Two-Family Residential zoned lot into two single-family attached lots located at 722-724 Grove St.; Final Plat of Fant’s Second Division. Gary Lothson of 17852 S. First St said that the Fant’s, who own a two-family duplex lot on the subject site would like to divide the lot into two single-family- attached zero-lot-line lots in order to allow the individual sale of each unit. Mr. Olson went over the staff report dated October 12, 2018 and stated the subject property is zoned “TFR” Two-Family and the proposed special use complies with all provisions of the application regulations off the TFR District. He added the proposed resubdivision would create two lots that will meet the 25-foot minimum lot width and the 3,500 square-foot minimum lot size requirements of the TFR District. Mr. Olson stated that the proposed use is compatible with the residential uses found in the surrounding neighborhood and not dominate the immediate area. He noted citizen response forms from Mark Wilson of 730 Grove St. and Joseph and Dora Casurella of 716 Grove St. were received and both indicated their support of the request. Mr. Olson noted the owner also obtained several signatures from neighbors indicating their support of the request and they are provided in the Commissioner’s packet. Mr. Castro asked if this property was a corner lot. Mr. Olson responded that it was not. Chair Doe gave one more opportunity for the public to speak. There was none, and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Buckley made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of a special permit to allow the resubdivision of a “TFR” Two-Family Residential zoned lot into two single-family attached lots in accordance with Article 5.03.06 of the Unified Development Ordinance for the property located at 722-724 Grove St. and approval of the Final Plat of Fant’s First Division dated June 6, 2018 subject to the conditions as indicated on Exhibit A of the staff report. Seconded by Ms. Barbe. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. 5. Public Hearing – Petition by Pete Occhipinti, represented by Mark Johnson, and West Suburban Bank, as Trustee under Trust no. 12128, owner, for approval of a special use permit for residential apartments over a ground floor commercial use in the “LC” Light Commercial District for property located at 1015 Blackhawk Road. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 7 of 15 Mark Johnson, law office located at 321 W. State St., #1200 in Rockford, IL, stated that he was representing the property owners, Pete Occhipinti. He summarized that the request for a special use for 22 dwelling units to be approved over existing commercial and commented that the staff report (dated October 12, 2018) outlining all the issues were received a few days ago. Mr. Johnson stated that he believes, based on the application, that his applicant was only required to provide schematic plans. He stated that he had requested pre-application meetings with the City and had been denied an opportunity to meet. Mr. Johnson indicated he had been granted a meeting, but that the meeting was pointless because the City had no questions for them. He stated that he asked to have another meeting leading up to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting so that he could discuss what comments that might be on the plans but instead only received the comments five days before the meeting. Mr. Johnson requested that the Commission continue the hearing to another date so that the architect would have an opportunity to address the comments in the staff report. Mr. Johnson also noted that some of the comments were silly, specifically noting that the comment about the lack of a fence detail on the plans was a minor issue and could be easily amended on the plans. Mr. Johnson reiterated his request that the Commission continue the hearing. City Attorney Dean Frieders stated that the City received a very similar plan that was reviewed by the Commission in 2016, which included the same, similar, or identical deficiencies as the current plan. He indicated this shows a lack of intent by the applicant to address deficiencies in the current plan. Mr. Frieders mentioned that the applicant did request a meeting in June 2018, which the City Attorney, Community Development Director, Principal Planner, and Economic Development Planner made available and attended. The meeting was also attended by the applicant, his attorney, realtor, and architect. Mr. Frieders said at the meeting, the applicant was given an opportunity to present the project, and that City staff asked questions about the plans, including the ability of the structure to support additional floors of development above a faulty first floor. The applicant and his architect disagreed on the level of modification to the building that would be necessary to support the residential portion on the upper level. Mr. Frieders stated that the City did not persist with questions after that disagreement. Mr. Frieders stated that the accusation that numerous requests for meetings had been rejected is incorrect, as in addition to the earlier meeting. He stated he received an e-mail requesting a meeting on October 2, 2018 from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Frieders added that he responded in less than two hours asking what Mr. Johnson and Mr. Occhipinti would like to meet about and when. Mr. Frieders stated that there was no response from Mr. Johnson until Friday (October 12, 2018), when an intent to request to continue was stated. Mr. Frieders noted that the requirements for a special use are clearly outlined in Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 8 of 15 the UDO and it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation that shows the project meets the minimum requirements. He stated that it is not the responsibility of City staff to correct plans for an applicant or to go through the UDO to advise how the plans would need to be updated. Mr. Frieders advised that the Commission has the ability to consider granting a continuation and noted that although this case was based on its own merits, the Commission made findings on a very similar proposal in the past, and that many of the same deficiencies exist in the current plan. Mr. Frieders recommended that the Commission should not grant the continuation and noted that the petitioner clearly stated in the application that there were no variations needed. Community Development Director Jo Ellen Charlton went through the staff report dated October 12, 2018 and stated that the subject property has suffered a partial roof collapse on the south end of the building and has been vacant for several years. She added that the City has requested documentation regarding the load-bearing capacity of the structure and has not yet been provided with that documentation. Ms. Charlton noted that the building is non-conforming in several respects including the northwestern corner of the building, which is not greater than 30 feet from the adjacent residential zoned property. Additionally, the eastern setback is not greater than 40 feet from Blackhawk Road as required by the UDO. Ms. Charlton noted that while the UDO does allow for expansion of buildings, however it must still conform to the requirements of the UDO and must not expand any dimensional nonconformity. Ms. Charlton stated that the building setback is measured to a part of the building that is west of the portico in the plans submitted, but the setback should instead be measured to the face of the portico. She said that the actual building footprint, layout, and related plans clearly show that the second and third floors extend over the portico and into the required setback area and therefore violates the UDO. Ms. Charlton also stated that when a lot abuts a residential district, a 30-foot minimum setback is required, and the existing building setback in that area are as little as 11.9 feet according to the applicant’s plat. She noted that regarding maximum site coverage, the information was not provided and therefore staff cannot determine compliance. Ms. Charlton said that the south elevation building height shows 45 feet and 4 inches, which exceeds the 45-foot maximum building height in the UDO. Ms. Charlton stated that according to the UDO, the “LC” Light Commercial District conditions state that a principal building may not exceed 25,000 square feet in gross floor area and that the plans submitted contain almost double that amount. She noted that no variations were requested by the applicant and the landscape plan was insufficient to meet provisions of the code and that the screening requirement for commercial next to residential was not met. Ms. Charlton noted that the screening requirement regarding rooftop mechanicals and garbage dumpsters was also not met as details were not provided to show compliance. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 9 of 15 Ms. Charlton explained to the Commission that the parking was not in compliance as the plan does not reflect pavement setbacks and therefore it is not possible for staff to determine where adequate parking can be provided in accordance with the UDO regulations. She mentioned the parking setback along Hillcrest Dr. is not a minimum of 10 feet in accordance with the UDO and a 30-foot minimum buffer between the parking lot and the west property line is not shown. Ms. Charlton also stated the proposed parking lot is smaller than the minimum requirements in the UDO. She added that no loading spaces are shown on the plan which is needed for a grocery store or light commercial use, and therefore not possible to determine compliance. Ms. Charlton noted that the compact vehicle space requirement is met, but the setback does not meet the UDO requirement and therefore staff cannot adequately determine if there is compliance. She noted that the submitted photometric plan shows a different parking layout, and the light standards are shown in locations that would interfere with proposed drive aisle and parking spaces. Ms. Charlton also said that the frontage does not meet the UDO requirements for landscaping adjacent to Blackhawk Rd. and Hillcrest Dr. She stated the landscaping shown for the interior parking lot areas are not in compliance with the UDO. Additionally, the central north/south islands and some of the end islands in the existing plan are not a minimum of nine feet as required and therefore not compliant. Ms. Charlton noted that the parking layout was not compliant as additional aisle width and turning radii are required for emergency vehicles. She also mentioned the plan provides only one way for south and west bound traffic movements around the east and south sides of the building. She said that this would be difficult for emergency vehicles entering the site and maneuvering. Ms. Charlton stated that other details were not provided for staff to determine compliance for requirements such as bicycle parking and shopping cart corrals. Additionally, she noted that with the non-compliant parking lot design staff cannot determine if minimum parking requirements are being met. She also stated that according to the UDO, non-conforming buildings may be maintained but cannot be expanded unless the expansion conforms to the UDO requirements. She added as the second and third floor addition extend up at the same non-conforming setbacks on the east and west sides of the building, the plan does not comply with the UDO. She said that the City’s Chief Building Official reviewed the plans and some of the variations to the code included providing no lobby or other means for accessing the other retail uses designated in what was previously the theater areas, a lack of corridors and bathrooms, and that there was no elevator shown. Ms. Charlton stated in the examination of the special use standards the proposal does not comply with all the provisions of the applicable district regulations. She said that as the application stands, it does not meet the UDO requirements. She also noted that it cannot be determined if the proposed Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 10 of 15 special use will not have a detrimental effect to the value of other properties and pointed out that the existing building has suffered long-term neglect and a roof collapse. Ms. Charlton noted that the proposed use of materials is not consistent with the building and character of the surrounding area, and the location and size of the special use is not compatible with the neighborhood. She also stated that the proposed special use is non-conforming in relation to setbacks to the adjacent residential property. She continued by noting the special use standard regarding adequate utility, drainage, and other such necessary facilities was not met as the plan did not provide these details nor did the applicant verify any of them. She mentioned the proposed plan does not prove the project can be constructed in accordance to the setback and parking requirements of the UDO. Ms. Charlton stated that the staff was not provided professionally prepared signed and sealed reports to verify the safety and security of the building and again noted the extended vacancy and lack of maintenance of the building. Ms. Charlton went over the history of the property and noted that the City had passed a text amendment in 2013 to “LC” District to require dwelling units over the ground level to be a special use. The applicant had filed a lawsuit against the City regarding the text amendments claiming they were not property notified of the change, however the lawsuit was dismissed based on the applicant’s failure to satisfy administrative remedies. She said that in 2017, the applicant filed a second lawsuit and alleged that he did not receive procedural due process regarding his property. Ms. Charlton said that it was dismissed in Circuit Court and that the Court had ruled the applicant had received full due process. The appellate court affirmed the Circuit Court ruling and the LC zoning of the property was properly entered. Ms. Charlton noted that a third lawsuit against the City is currently pending and that the applicant alleges that the City bears responsibility for damage to the structure that accrued while the roof collapse was open, but she also noted that this was not related to the zoning of the property. Ms. Charlton stated that City staff’s time and money were used to process this application and recommended that “be denied” should be added to the end of the sample motion provided in the staff report. Chair Doe opened the hearing to public comment. There was none. Public comment – none. Ms. Barbe noted that this property was mentioned in the Annie Glidden North Revitalization Plan and agreed that the property is blighted and is disappointed that the owner did not take advantage of the opportunity to redevelop the site. She questioned whether the applicant could submit another application that met the criteria. Ms. Charlton explained the UDO does not have a waiting period for submittal of new applications if denied. Ms. Buckley stated that she wants the community to be business-friendly but was disappointed by the plan at this point and that the applicant had not provided everything that was Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 11 of 15 needed. She said that she would love to see something happen on this property but understood that this was not possible if all the information was not provided. Mr. Castro noted that there was a discrepancy between Mr. Johnson’s testimony about requesting meetings multiple times and the City Attorney’s response. Mr. Frieders reiterated that he responded to Mr. Johnson’s request to meet on October 2nd within two hours but did not hear back from Mr. Johnson until this past Friday (October 12th). Mr. Frieders also noted that the two of them had talked about this property as part of the currently ongoing court proceedings, and that because of those meetings, there was no ongoing request to meet. Mr. Castro further questioned whether it was fair to deny a continuation of the hearing. Mr. Frieders responded further by noting that as a part of the Principal Planner’s ongoing requests to get better documentation, the applicant informed the City that he was not going to provide additional documentation. For example, in response to providing a document showing the location and condition of public utilities, the applicant provided an aerial printout from the City’s GIS site. He added that when the City requested more detailed documentation or verification, the applicant stated he was not going to submit further documents. Mr. Frieders also noted the City questioned whether the applicant wanted to apply for any variations and was told that the he was not seeking any variations, even though the plans were similar to the plans submitted two years ago and those plans had included variations. Chair Doe asked for clarification regarding the phrase “no relief” in the staff report. Ms. Charlton stated that the applicant did not request any variances and that a special use with variances is sometimes referred to as “relief”. Mr. Frieders also stated that applications are submitted under the assumption of compliance with the UDO. Mr. Johnson responded that when he requested the meeting on October 2nd, he had not received any feedback at that time and did not know whether plans were satisfactory or not. He stated that had he known the concerns as outlined in the staff report, they could have worked with the architect to remove the portico, increase setbacks and do other things to address the concerns raised. Mr. Johnson said that his client wants to see something happen on this property and wants to invest and build a nice project. He noted that the recommendations of the AGN Plan showed a proposal that was denser than his client’s proposal. He commented that no one has ever approached his client about any planning efforts and reiterated his request that the matter be continued so plans can be revised and resubmitted. Ms. Buckley asked whether it is incumbent on an applicant to go through the UDO to identify compliance. Mr. Frieders responded that where staff has an applicant who submits a petition and plan, this is the procedure that is followed. He noted that in this case, the applicant was clear that he was submitting for a Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 12 of 15 special use, and did not request any variations, despite the plans being similar to the previous plans submitted which included several variations. He commented that a better approach, given the complexity of the project, would be to request planned development zoning. Mr. Frieders and Ms. Charlton noted that given the unwillingness of the owner to even provide structural details on the stability of the roof and a special use application that indicated no variations, staff went forward with what was submitted. Ms. Buckley asked what the disadvantage would be to not grant a continuance. Mr. Frieders responded that even if an effort was made to revise the plans, there would still be multiple variations that could not be addressed. He added that any plans that would come back would likely be more than what a special use permit could authorize. Mr. Frieders stated that a new plan would likely require a new application, revised plans, and a new public hearing. Chair Doe questioned what would happen if the Commission recommended denial, but the City Council wanted to recommend approval. Mr. Frieders stated that the Council could direct the petition back to the Commission or the Council could make their own conditions of approval. He further commented that if the Council wanted to approve the project, the applicant would need to provide or request amending the findings of fact that would be consistent with an approval. Ms. Buckley asked for clarification regarding the procedure for resubmission. Mr. Frieders indicated that it would likely come as a petition for rezoning. Mr. Castro indicated that he would recommend denial of the petition. Chair Doe gave one more opportunity for the public to speak. There was none, and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Barbe asked if the denial of this petition would mean that this issue is closed. Ms. Charlton responded that the applicant can choose to work with the staff to re-file the application and a redo of the process. Chair Doe stated that this property needs something to happen but that procedures need to be followed. She stated that the property was a good place when it was occupied but is vacant now and needs to be redeveloped correctly and that safety is the primary concern. Ms. Buckley stated that if this petition is denied and if the Council denies this petition, she encourages the applicant to resubmit and complete all required documentation. Mr. Occhipinti indicated he believed the petition was complete. Chair Doe reiterated that she needs safety assured and that she does not want to endanger the public or the owner. She further encouraged the owner to submit a proper application that takes everything into consideration. Chair Doe stated that the Commission cannot in good conscience approve an application does not have complete documentation. Mr. Castro made a motion based on the submitted petition, staff report, and testimony presented that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings for special uses enumerated in the October 12, 2018 staff report to the DeKalb Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Special Use Permit for Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 13 of 15 1015 Blackhawk Road and recommend to the DeKalb City Council that the requested special use permit be denied. Seconded by Ms. Buckley. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. 6. Item for Public Discussion – Petition by MCJ Investments-Green Circuit for approval of a special use permit for a solar garden proposed to be located in unincorporated DeKalb County and within the City of DeKalb’s 1 ½ mile planning jurisdiction for the site located along the south side of Twombly Road, approximately 1,300 feet west of Annie Glidden Road with an address of 1400 Twombly Road (Suburban Apartments) Brett Robinson with Green Circuit stated that he worked with the City on the deficiencies in their plan and noted that it was not unreasonable and that the City was easy to work with. He stated that this was a nice project that would fit into the AGN plan and is within the purview of the City. Ms. Charlton went through the staff report dated October 12, 2018 and stated staff recommends support for the project subject to the conditions listed in the report. She said that Mr. Robinson indicated agreement with the conditions that the City is recommending, including a re-platting of the site per the City’s request. Ms. Charlton stated that while the location of the existing storm sewer is not provided, the applicant agreed to grant an easement if it does not fall within the 80 feet right of way to be dedicated along the west property line. She also noted that if the existing drainage easement exists, it may be necessary to extend the easement to the far south property line if it falls outside the 80 feet right-of-way to be dedicated. Regarding the platting language, Ms. Charlton said that the property will remain unincorporated unless future actions by the owner or the City necessitate annexation. Ms. Charlton also stated that an agreement between the owner and the City is necessary that stipulates the owner will remain responsible for maintenance of the right-of-way and will need to provide liability until such time as the City improves the right-of-way with roadway improvements. The applicant confirmed that they would continue to maintain the property. Ms. Charlton also stated appropriate signage and a barrier will be provided at the south end of the eastern right-of-way dedication. She added that while the water and fire hydrants do not connect to city water service, the DeKalb Fire Department does provide service. She stated the Department determined that there was adequate water flow and pressure at the site. Regarding access, Ms. Charlton said that hard surface pavement instead of gravel should be used for access anywhere outside the fenced area, which the applicant has agreed to provide. Inside the fenced area, she mentioned gravel access will be provided for the low-intensity use and will include a T-Type turn around at the west end. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 14 of 15 Ms. Charlton stated that staff had asked for verification that the amount and pattern of drainage will not be altered on the site, and the applicant confirmed there would be no substantial changes due to the use of permanent plantings and maintenance of the existing drain tiles. She also said that the setback on the west side of the solar facility should be no closer to the new 80-foot right- of-way than the County’s setback requirement or 25 feet, which the applicant agreed to. Finally, Ms. Charlton stated that staff requested additional screening in two areas, which the applicant has agreed to and will augment with evergreen plantings. Mr. Castro thanked staff for working out the remaining issues with the applicant. Ms. Barbe stated that she was glad this project is coming to the City and that there is a need for more renewable energy. Chair Doe asked about potential additional landscape screening and asked where the landscaping would go. Ms. Charlton responded that it would be within 80 feet and the evergreens would be in the 25-foot setback area. She stated the trees would be in the parkway of the 80-foot right-of-way. Chair Doe stated that this was a good opportunity to work alongside the County and appreciated the fact that the County gave additional time to the City to work out issues with the applicant. Chair Doe asked if the Commissioners had any more questions or comments. Ms. Barbe made a motion based on the applicant’s submittal and agreement to enter into a binding agreement with the City of DeKalb that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that the City Council recommend to the DeKalb County Hearing Officer and County Board that the applicant’s request for a solar farm as outlined in DeKalb County Case DK 18- 32 be approved, subject to the owner’s execution of an agreement with the City of DeKalb that requires conformance to the “Conditions of Approval” as outlined in Section IV “Conclusions and Recommendations” of the staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission’s October 17, 2018 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Buckley. A roll call vote was taken. Ms. Barbe – yes, Ms. Buckley – yes, Mr. Castro – yes, Chair Doe – yes. Motion passed 4-0-2. Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Wright were absent. F. REPORTS Mr. Olson mentioned the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be Wednesday, November 7th, and there are three public hearings scheduled. He stated that the special use permit for the digital sign for the Hillcrest Covenant Church and the rezoning for Adventure Works along Sycamore Road were passed at the October 8th City Council meeting. Mr. Olson thanked the Commission for their time and attention to the petitions tonight recognizing it was a long agenda. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2018 Page 15 of 15 G. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Barbe motioned to adjourn, Ms. Buckley seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Christine Wang, Recording Secretary Minutes were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 19, 2018.