DeKalb Times

City of Dekalb Planning & Zoning Commission met July 1.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on July 1, 2024, in the Yusunas Meeting Room at the DeKalb Public Library, 309 Oak St. DeKalb, Illinois. Vice Chair Bill McMahon called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.

A. ROLL CALL

Planning Director, Dan Olson, called the roll. Planning and Zoning Commission members present were: Vice Chair Bill McMahon, Steve Becker, Trixy O’Flaherty, Shannon Stoker, and Jerry Wright. Maria Pena Graham, and Chair Max Maxwell were absent. Planning Director Dan Olson was present representing the City of DeKalb.

B. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Additions/Deletions)

Vice Chair McMahon requested a motion to approve the July 1, 2024, agenda as presented. Mr. Becker motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Wright seconded the motion, and the motion was approved by unanimous voice vote.

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. June 17, 2024 – Vice Chair McMahon requested a motion to approve the June 17, 2024, minutes as presented. Mr. Wright motioned to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Stoker 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 – A petition by Todd and Tabatha DeRouin for approval of a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a 6-foot-high privacy fence and accessory structure in a portion of the front yard along Prairie Ave. for the property located at 928 N. 14th Street.

The Petitioner, Todd DeRouin of 928 N. 14th Street, spoke on behalf of him and his wife regarding their petition for a variance to allow a 6ft high privacy fence and an accessory structure in a portion of the front yard along Prairie Avenue. Mr. DeRouin opened by thanking the Commission for their time and consideration of his request. He went on to discuss the history of his home, stating it was built over 100 years ago, and was constructed at 16’ 9” from the lot line along Prairie Ave. He added the lot is of a 51ft wide lot, rendering 3,174 sq. ft. as usable front yard equivalent to about 45% of the lot. At this time, an aerial view of the subject property and surrounding lots was shown on the monitor. Mr. DeRouin stated that constructing a fence, per current code, would inhibit him and his wife’s ability to enjoy the privacy and safety of their full yard.

Mr. DeRouin additionally mentioned the current code would deny them the ability to have any accessory structures, such as the small gazebo currently present in their front yard along Prairie Ave. He stated the fence regulations for corner lots are not in harmony with the general purpose or intent of the ordinance. He then asked the Commission to approve the variance which would allow them to extend the height of the fence from 4ft tall and 50% open per the code, to a 6ft tall privacy fence. He also requested the Commission approve the variance allowing them to let the current 12’x14’ gazebo remain directly in front of their existing shed. Mr. DeRouin went on to explain that approving the variance would avoid having them digging additional post holes or pouring additional concrete, therefore avoiding more cost. He advised they would be willing to move the fence to a setback of 4ft from the sidewalk to allow for additional green space, if required, and relocate the gazebo to be centered with the garage.

Mr. DeRouin mentioned with both Littlejohn Elementary School and Prather Park within a 3-block radius of the subject property the foot traffic on the sidewalk running alongside their property is quite heavy and made up primarily of small children. He said they fear a child may reach through or over a 4ft high 50% open fence subsequently being bitten by their large dog.

Mr. DeRouin concluded by discussing the positive impacts the approved variance would have on their property. He noted they would have the ability to install a pool for his disabled wife’s aquatic therapy, improve their property value, and provide safety and privacy from unkempt adjacent properties. He added the request would not negatively impact the surrounding area, inhibit visibility, or decrease safety. Finishing his presentation, he offered his yard to all to enjoy, and stated if anyone discovered his yard had a negative impact on the surrounding area, he would address it. He stressed their yard is a sanctuary, and he presumed all others would feel the same if they spent time in it.

Vice Chair McMahon thanked Mr. DeRouin for his time and asked for the City’s report.

Planning Director, Dan Olson, gave his Staff Report dated June 27, 2024. A survey and photos of the lot reflecting the currently installed 6ft high privacy fence along Prairie Avenue, and 12’ x14’ gazebo was shown on the monitor. He reviewed the petition, confirming the DeRouin’s were seeking a variance that would allow them to keep the 6ft high privacy fence, and have an accessory structure (gazebo) in the front yard along Prairie Ave. Mr. Olson advised the current structures were constructed without a permit, and Mr. DeRouin was notified by the City of the violation. He advised there were a few meetings between the City and Mr. DeRouin to prepare the variance application and review the requirements for a hardship.

Mr. Olson further stated while a hardship was determined, the City suggested the current fence be moved back 4ft to be in line with the shed which would allow some green space between the fence and the sidewalk. He mentioned the City recognizes the lot is somewhat smaller than the neighboring lots, and is a corner lot, which creates some difficulties and hardships. The survey reflecting the current fence and gazebo were shown on the monitor.

Mr. Olson continued to discuss the current structures in the yard mentioning the shed was legal nonconforming and built prior to the DeRouin’s purchasing the home in 2003. He said the survey (Exhibit A) reflected the proposed 4ft setback from the sidewalk for the fence. Mr. Olson confirmed if the fence were constructed per the current code, the DeRouin’s would be losing significant usable rear yard space. He agreed the construction of the 6ft high privacy fence would provide safety for and from their dog, which is a good thing.

To conclude, Mr. Olson stated the City recommended approval of the variance with a 4ft setback of the fence along Prairie Ave. shown on the survey (Exhibit A) and approving the gazebo to stay in its current location. He further confirmed that based on the finding of fact, the petition met all criteria for a variance. He stated the City received one public comment email from Brian Smith of 124 N. 6th

Street in support of the petition.

Vice Chair McMahon opened the public comment section of the hearing, and no comments were made. He then opened the discussion to the Commission. Mr. Becker stated he completely understood the reasons behind the petition, but stated he was in agreement with the 4ft setback recommended by the City. He believes the 4ft setback would create a buffer between DeRouin’s property and the sidewalk, causing people, especially children, to pause prior to putting their hands through the fence. Ms. O’Flaherty added she lives in the neighborhood, and understands the lots are narrow, but is in support of the 4ft setback for the fence. Mr. McMahon stated his concerns regarding two bicycles trying to pass each other on such a narrow strip of sidewalk without the green space as a buffer. Ms. Stoker commented she believes the fence looks nice as it is and would not require the 4ft setback.

Mr. McMahon asked for a motion, and Mr. DeRouin asked to respond to the Commission. Mr. DeRouin addressed the City’s request for the 4ft setback, stating there are several fences in the area that are right against the sidewalk. He also cited building plans in Plainfield, Illinois and Surprise, Arizona that utilize 6ft privacy fences right against the sidewalk. He mentioned he feels corner lots are often neglected due to their inability to allow privacy fences, and adding this variance would allow property values on corner lots to increase.

Mr. Olson responded to Mr. DeRouin’s comments stating they could have a 4ft high 50% open fence right up to the sidewalk, but the code was changed in 2008 or 2009 to prevent corner lots having 6ft high stockade style fences right against the sidewalk. He further explained the variance allows the Commission to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. He believes leaving the fence along the sidewalk and not adding the 4ft setback goes against the core of the City’s ordinance.

Mr. Mahon asked for any additional comments, and none were made. He then requested a motion on the petition. Mr. Becker moved that based on the submitted petition, testimony presented and findings of fact, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission approve variances to Articles 7.04.10, 7.06.4.b and 7.06.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a 6-foot-high privacy fence and accessory structure in a portion of the front yard along Prairie Ave. for the home at 928 N. 14th. St. as shown on Exhibit A of the staff report dated June 27, 2024. Wright seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken – Becker - yes, O’Flaherty – yes, Stoker – yes, Wright – yes, McMahon – yes. Chair Maxwell and Ms. Pena Graham were absent. Motion passed 5-0-2.

2. Public Hearing - A petition by David and Nikki Ledwell for approval of a variance to the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a 6-foot-high privacy fence in a portion of the front yard along Willow Circle for the property located at 627 Fox Hollow.

Nikki Ledwell, of 627 Fox Hollow, presented the petition. She opened by stating the reasons for their petition for the variance, starting with their oddly shaped lot. An aerial view of their lot and surrounding properties were shown on the monitor. She mentioned the subject property is a corner lot that backs up to a cul-de-sac. She stated she understands they have the ability to erect a 4ft tall 50% open fence, however, a tall chain link fence would disrupt the aesthetics of their neighborhood. Additionally, Ms. Ledwell stated a 4ft fence would not be sufficient for their 6ft 5in son who has severe anxiety and has difficulty going outside. She added a taller fence would help relieve a lot of his anxiety, allowing him to fully enjoy their backyard.

She went on to discuss their large, 70lb pit-bull labrador mix, stating while they do keep him chained up in the yard, there have been issues in the past with him getting excited and scaring people when he is running at them. Ms. Ledwell fears a 4ft fence would not solve the issue, as the size of their dog would allow it to jump a small fence. A 6ft privacy fence would not only create a sense of safety for others, but it would also allow her dog to fully enjoy their yard, increasing his quality of life.

She then spoke of the area of her yard that would be cut off if they constructed the 6ft high fence per the current code. The area is full of plants indigenous to Illinois that she planted to help increase the bee and Monarch populations.

She concluded by stating cutting their yard in half with a fence would not allow them to fully enjoy the corner lot they paid for. She finished her presentation by reiterating the lot’s awkward shape and smaller size than surrounding lots.

Planning Director Dan Olson followed Ms. Ledwell ‘s presentation with the Staff Report dated June 27, 2024. An aerial view of the subject lot and subdivision was shown on the monitor. Mr. Olson pointed out there are four lots along Fox Hollow, including the Ledwell’s lot, that have unique shapes due to being on corner lots that have one side along a cul-de-sac. He noted the applicant’s lot is the smallest of these four lots.

A new exhibit of an aerial view of the subject property was shown reflecting the home, proposed fence line, and where the fence would need to be per current code. While this was shown, Mr. Olson pointed out the area of the yard that would be cut off if the fence was put in per current code, and stated Ledwell’s rear yard is smaller than the other three similar lots along Fox Hollow.

A plat of survey reflecting the proposed fence line was then shown on the monitor, and Mr. Olson discussed how the survey reflected their proposed fence. A street view of the subject property looking North was shown and Mr. Olson confirmed the visibility of the neighbor to the North would not be impacted by the proposed 6ft high privacy fence. He then added 527 Fox Hollow, which is a similar lot to the subject property, has a 6ft high privacy fence that was approved without a variance due to the angle of the home. Mr. Olson advised the petition met the findings of fact due to the unique shape of the lot, and the City recommended approval of the variance.

Mr. Olson said two public comments were received. One from James Kayes at 640 Fox Hollow in favor of the variance, and one from James and Emily Reilly of 632 Fox Hollow in support of the variance.

Vice Chair McMahon opened the discussion to the public. No comments were made. He closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission. Ms. O’Flaherty stated this petition made sense due to the shape of the lot. Mr. Becker voiced his agreement with Ms. O’Flaherty. Vice Chair McMahon requested a motion on the petition.

Mr. Wright moved that based on the submitted petition, testimony presented and findings of fact, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission approve variances to Articles 7.06.4.b and 7.06.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance to allow a 6-foot-high privacy fence in a portion of the front yard along Willow Circle for the home at 627 Fox Hollow as shown on Exhibit A of the staff report dated June 27, 2024. Ms. Stoker seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken – Becker – yes, O’Flaherty – yes, Stoker – yes, Wright – yes, McMahon – yes. Chair Maxwell and Ms. Pena Graham were absent. Motion passed 5-0-2.

3. Minor Subdivision Plat – A petition by Lary Burns for the approval of the L&S Resubdivision No. One – Fairview Drive.

Sarah Burns, of 612 Hampshire Drive, Hampshire, Illinois, spoke on behalf of her father, the petitioner, Larry Burns. Ms. Burns opened by stating she and the petitioner used to reside at 314 Fairview Drive, and her father purchased the vacant lot from the City. She added the lot has remained green space with Mr. Burns intending to build a small retirement home on the lot. She stated that plans have since changed, and they would like to sell the lot. Ms. Burns stated approximately one year ago they listed the lot on the open market, where it remained for a year. Based on comparable properties, they believe the lot was listed on the low end of purchase prices. She stated while they received multiple offers, all offers ended up backing out due to the lot not being buildable. Ms. Burns added the resubdivision would allow the lot to become buildable and therefore could be sold. She advised her and Mr. Burns offered the lot to the adjoining neighbors for purchase, but the neighbors declined.

Mr. McMahon directed the discussion to Planning Director Olson for the Staff Report.

Mr. Olson gave the Staff Report dated June 27, 2024, starting with the history of the property and the request. The City received the petition discussed by Ms. Burns, and a Plat of Resubdivision application for the lot along the southside of Fairview Dr. An aerial map of the subject property and subdivision was shown on the monitor. Mr. Olson explained the subject lot is 66ft x 200ft and narrower

than the other lots along the south side of Fairview Dr., which are 100ft x 200ft. A street view of the vacant lot was shown on the monitor.

Mr. Olson went on to discuss the original Plat of Subdivision from 1956 where the subject lot was not given a lot number as it was designated as a right of way for a future road. He added when the subdivision to the south was built in 2001, the road was not constructed due to the road being too close to S. 4th St. and the subject lot remained vacant green space.

He clarified that Mr. Burns obtained title to the subject lot through an Adverse Possession Claim in 2008. While Mr. Burns sold the property at 314 Fairview, he did not sell the subject lot. Mr. Olson mentioned the City advised Mr. Burns in order to sell the subject lot as buildable, a Plat of Resubdivision would need to be approved by the City and recorded at the County at Mr. Burns’ expense.

Mr. Olson advised the lot is currently zoned SFR-1 “Single Family Residence”. He noted the current zoning requirement states the lot must be at least 10,000 square feet to accommodate a home and the subject lot is 13,200 square feet. He stated a Plat had been submitted reflecting a 70ft front building line which is in keeping with the with the rest of the homes along Fairview Dr. Mr. Olson noted this exceeds the current SFR-1 requirement of a 25ft building line. He also pointed out a utility easement was added to the rear of the lot consistent with the adjacent properties. Mr. Olson stated there were a few meetings between the neighboring owners and the City, but he understood no offers were made by the adjacent owners to purchase the lot.

Mr. Olson concluded by stating the lot does meet the current subdivision requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance. He said if the Plat is approved and recorded per the City’s regulations, then the lot would be deemed buildable and could be sold to someone to build a single-family home. An aerial photo of the subject lot was shown, and the location of the water and sewer hookups at the property were discussed. He also stated anybody looking to build a single-family home on the lot would need to follow the City’s process, the same as anyone else building a new home. Mr. Olson added meetings with the City Engineer would need to take place prior to construction, and the proposed home would need to be approved by the City. He stated the City recommended approval of the Plat of Resubdivision.

Although not a public hearing, Vice Chair McMahon opened the discussion to the public. He stated three people were in the audience submitted Speakers Request Forms prior to the meeting. Mr. McMahon called them in order as received.

First, was Brent McIntosh of 314 Fairview Dr. Mr. McIntosh discussed three reasons he is opposed to the petition. His first reason being the resubdivision would violate the character and characteristics of the neighborhood. He stated all of the current homes along Fairview Dr. are forward facing ranch houses on lots 100ft x 200ft. Mr. McIntosh brought up his concerns regarding the traffic on Fairview Drive. He stated adding additional homes to Fairview Dr. would add to the traffic and the driveway to a future home would be at the crest of a hill on Fairview Dr. which would be problematic. Lastly, he argued in support of Mr. Burns having the opportunity to earn back his initial investment by only being allowed to sell the lot, but not making it buildable for a home. He reiterated that the land was not purchased by Mr. Burns but was deeded to him via a court order for Adverse Possession.

The second speaker was Ellen Tyne of 312 Fairview Dr. Mrs. Tyne advised her and her husband purchased their property in 1989 and had always maintained half of the vacant lot until 2020 when a for sale sign was placed on the property. She commented on the sporadic mowing of the vacant lot since then, and mentioned that in the past, whoever lived at 314 Fairview always shared the responsibility of maintaining the subject lot. She stated kids frequently use that to walk through on their way to school, and other people use it to get to the park across Fairview Dr. She commented it was shocking to see a for sale sign go up on the subject lot because they were not informed of Mr. Burns’ ownership of the lot. She concluded by stating she agrees with Mr. McIntosh in regards to the integrity of the neighborhood, and it is disturbing to think a two-story or smaller house could go on that lot. She believes the plat should be denied.

The third and final public speaker was Troy Barclay of 351 Serenity Lane. He continued by stating he and his wife purchased their home in 2018, and at that time, discussed the subject lot with their relator. Their realtor stated the lot was meant as an easement that was going to be a road, but his house was built there instead. Mr. Barclay was under the impression the land was going to remain open space. He mentioned children use that frequently to cut through, and it would be ideal for the neighbors to continue splitting the maintenance of the subject lot. Mr. Barclay concluded by sharing concerns regarding the type of home that could be built on the smaller lot.

Due to the Plat of Resubdivision not being a public hearing, Vice Chair McMahon stated he did not need to close the public hearing, but he did direct the discussion to the Commission. Mr. Olson responded to Mr. McIntosh’s concerns about traffic and advised any new home that would be built would need to have their driveway location approved by the City Engineer.

Mr. McMahon asked Mr. Olson about the setback lines and size of homes. Mr. Olson responded that all setbacks for that subdivision are the same, 30ft in the rear and 5ft on the side yards. He admitted that a home built on the lot would potentially be a two-story home, but confirmed a home could fit on the property. Mr. McMahon asked Mr. McIntosh and Ms. Tyne for the sizes of their homes to help provide a better visual for him. Mr. McIntosh advised his home is approximately 90ft wide, and Ms. Tyne believed hers was approximately 80ft wide because she does not have a double garage.

Ms. O’Flaherty commented that her lot is probably about 55ft x 170ft and her home is a two-story house. Ms. Stoker asked Mr. Olson if the hope and the City’s intention was to have the neighbors split the lot, to which Mr. Olson responded that would be ideal, but they cannot force anyone to purchase the land.

Ms. Tyne stated she and her husband and Mr. and Mrs. McIntosh spent many hours discussing the purchase of the lot. Mrs. Tyne said they had conversations with Mr. Olson and City Manager, Bill Nicklas. She stated the price that was presented to them by Mr. Burns’ realtor, Kelly Miller, was presented as a firm price, and was far more than they could justify spending.

Ms. Burns stated the price of the subject lot was based on comparable lots in the area. She added it was listed at a reduced price for a year prior to property taxes being due, and they have incurred additional fees for the survey and City applications. Ms. Tyne responded when the lot was previously listed for sale, they were told by the City Attorney the lot was not buildable, and there was no talk about any resubdivision.

Mr. Wright questioned if the issue amongst the neighbors was that the price of the lot depends on whether or not it is buildable. Mr. Olson responded to Mr. Wright and redirected the Commission’s focus back to whether or not it meets the minimum lot size requirements and the UDO, which it does.

Mr. Becker asked for confirmation from Mr. Olson that any potential builder would have to have their plans approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Olson confirmed.

Mr. Becker reiterated that while he does not agree, it is the Commission’s job only to determine if the lot meets minimum standards, which he admitted it does.

Vice Chair McMahon asked for any additional comments. Mr. Olson gave the City’s recommendation to approve the Resubdivision.

Mr. Becker made a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat of the L&S Resubdivision No. One dated June 24, 2024, prepared by JADE Hanna Surveyors and labeled as Exhibit A to the staff report subject to all staff comments being addressed prior to the recording of the Plat. Mr. McMahon

asked for a second on the motion, to which no one initially responded. He asked for clarification from Mr. Olson on how to proceed. Mr. Olson asked the Commission if there was another motion they would prefer to make. After no response, Mr. McMahon asked if he was able to second the motion, Mr. Olson confirmed he could, and Mr. McMahon seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. Becker – yes, O’Flaherty – yes, Stoker – no, Wright – no, McMahon – yes. Chair Maxwell and Ms. Pena Graham were absent. The motion passed 3-2-2.

F. REPORTS

Mr. Olson noted at the most recent City Council meeting, the Council approved the rezoning for A.H. Auto at 1104-1124 S. 4th Street and the Algus Plat of Resubdivision. He discussed the items currently planned for the July 15th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Olson said two hearings are currently scheduled, one for the Goldin Property at the corner of Peace and Gurler Roads. He added the land was annexed in 2023 without an end user. Mr. Olson noted the proposed use is a data center and the petitioner has submitted an application. He said the permitted uses will need to be amended to include a data center and an amendment is needed to increase the allowable square footage and to amend the concept plan to accommodate the data center. He also spoke on the second hearing for another fence variance along N. 12th St.

Mr. Olson mentioned there may be a few upcoming meetings that will take place at the DeKalb Police Department Training Room due to the City Council budget meetings at the library. He noted a calendar reflecting those will be circulated to Commission members.

Finally, Mr. Olson introduced the newly promoted Assistant City Manager, Bob Redel. Mr. Redel went through his history with the City of DeKalb. He spoke about how he was with the Police Department for 28.5 years, Crime Free Housing for the last year and a half and the Assistant City Manager for two weeks. He went on to let the Commission know he was here for them, and added he has a lot of knowledge of the City.

G. ADJOURNMENT

Vice Chair McMahon requested a motion to Adjourn. Ms. O’Flaherty motioned to adjourn, and Mr. Becker seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:54p.m.

https://www.cityofdekalb.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_07152024-2555