City of Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission met July 21

By Kristine Gonzales-Abella

Oct 29, 2021

City of Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission met July 21.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Pilmer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

The following Commission members were present: Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs. Owusu-Safo and Ms. Tidwell.

OTHERS PRESENT

The following staff members were present: Mr. Sieben, Mrs. Morgan, Mr. Broadwell, and Mrs. Jackson.

Others Present: Patti Bernhard (Rosanova and Whitaker), Matt Brolley (Pulte Homes), Joe Iovinelli (Manhard Consulting), Alex Lopez (Cordogan Clark Architects), Dan Olson (Watermark Engineering), Bruce Goldsmith (Dykema Gossett), Patrick Cook (DR Horton), Judy Ni (Pacific Square III), and Bob Channell (Fox Valley Habitat for Humanity).

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

21-0471 Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 16, 2021.

A motion was made by Ms. Tidwell, seconded by Mr. Cameron, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Pilmer said if you are here for an item that does not appear on the agenda as a public hearing and you wish to speak to the Commission, we can give you 3 minutes to do so.

No one came forward.

AGENDA

21-0414 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat for Lincoln Crossing Subdivision on vacant land, generally located at the southeast corner of Wolf’s Crossing and Eola Road (Pulte Home Group - 21-0414 - WH07/4-21.162-Fsd/Fpn - TV - Ward 9)

Mr. Sieben said good evening everyone. Welcome back in person. We made it. I think our last meeting in person had to be the beginning of March of 2020, so it is good to see everyone. These 2 items are going to be presented together. It is for the same development, the Lincoln Prairie Development. This is specifically for the Lincoln Crossing Subdivision, which is the northerly portion of the development with the traditional single family homes. This consists of 63.9 acres. This property was originally annexed into the City of Aurora in 2002. It has some townhome zoning up by Wolf’s Crossing and the rest of it was industrial. The property never developed since 2002. The City of Aurora then did what was called the Wolf’s Crossing subarea plan back in February of 2021, which re-designated the future land use of this area as primarily low density residential. There is some commercial over by Route 30, but this area is designated low density. Subsequent to that, in April of this year, the City Council approved a revision to the Annexation Agreement and Plan Description, which zoned the property for single family residential uses. Subsequently a Preliminary Plat and Plan Revision for the Lincoln Crossing Subdivision, which you see here, was also approved at the same time for 162 traditional detached single family homes. The Petitioner will give a brief presentation in a few minutes to go over it in more detail. This does have a mixture of 2 lot sizes, 55 feet wide and 65 feet wide with 2 different series of homes. The minimum lot size is 8,060 square feet. There is also going to be an over 4 acre park constructed as part of this development for Lincoln Crossing, which will be donated to the Fox Valley Park District. Staff did work with the Petitioner on elevations. I think we are very happy with the elevations presented. It does allow for a variety of facades for the development. Unless there are any questions of me, they are here and they have a brief presentation.

Good evening. My name is Patti Bernhard. I am with the law form of Rosanova and Whitaker. I’m here on behalf of Pulte Home Company. They are the contract purchaser of the property here tonight. I also have Matt Brolley here. He is the Land Entitlement Manager for Pulte and I have Joe Iovinelli, who is an engineer with Manhard Engineering. We’re more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. This project came through preliminary back in April and so I’m just going to do a brief presentation, since you’ve already heard this project. I talked to Ed and he just said try to do a brief update on what’s happened since we were here in April. I know at that point in time, they talked a little bit about Pulte and I just wanted you to know that they’ve been in business for 50 years. They actually were the top selling community in the Chicagoland area for 2017, 2018 and 2019. They do know a lot about the Chicago home market. Pulte also has been active in the Aurora area. They sold out of their Deerbrook Subdivision, which is shown on the exhibit. They’ve recently developed a single family project known as Laurelton Place in Aurora and a townhome project known as Meadow Ridge. This project, you can see, is coming in south of those projects as well. Pulte is also the owner of Del Webb, which is the top 55 and over age restricted housing market with 4 projects in the State of Illinois. As Ed stated, the property is located at Wolf’s Crossing Road and a little bit east of Route 30 and north of 111th Street. Pulte is the contract purchaser for the entire property. We are looking at the northern section, which is the Lincoln Crossing project, but this graphic shows the entire parcel. As Ed stated, there are a couple of commercial parcels, which you can see in red. The other parcel that’s on the north is our Lincoln Crossing and then the other project that you can see that is on the east side is going to be the Del Webb component, which is the active adult product. There are 2 other parcels which are kind of our flex parcels, depending on what happens with the single family detached versus the Del Webb, so we are looking at being able to come in and do whatever is working best in the Aurora market with those 2 projects. Lincoln Crossing is the project that we are here tonight on. We are developing in phases. The first phase coming in is going to be the Lincoln Crossing project, which is approximately 64 acres. That is shown on the plan. The Final Plan and Plat are in substantial conformance with the plan and plat that were approved back in April by the City Council. We anticipate selling out Laurelton this year, so we are looking forward to getting back into the Aurora market with some single family housing. We’re looking at a 162 single family lot subdivision. 111 of those lots will be the Meadows Series, which are the smaller lots, and that’s in the dark green in the photo. The Estate Series, which is 51 lots, are the lighter green lots that you can see. The Meadows Series has 3 different styles of homes with 4 to 5 different elevations for each one.

The Estates has 3 different styles of homes with 4 different elevations for each one, so you can see, that’s a lot of different styles of homes to be built in this subdivision.

These are elevations for the Meadow Series and again, there were all presented previously at Planning Commission and then the Estate Series homes. Just a little bit, the subdivision has access onto Wolf’s Crossing and also access onto Eola Road.

There are buffers all the way around the project, which will be maintained by the HOA. Particularly important, there are 50 foot buffers along Eola and 35 foot buffers along Wolf’s Crossing, so there’s quite a buffer between those major roadways. Pulte is donating a 4 plus acre park to the Fox Valley Park District. They will improve that park with a small playground. They are working with the Park District in order to have them approve that park site and that playground site that they are looking at. The final aspect of this, which is actually going to be coming up in the next phase of development, which is the Lincoln Prairie by Del Webb component, which is the age restricted housing, this is the pedestrian bridge. I think they talked about this a little bit at Planning Commission previously, but you can see that there’s going to be a pedestrian bridge, which is going to cross over Eola Road. That’s going to be built as part of the second phase, which is an age restricted housing. You can see the pictures. At the top is the graphic of what we anticipate the bridge to look like. The middle shows you where the bridge is going to come through that subdivision all the way across the bottom and then the bottom shows the plantings that will be surrounding that bridge area. Finally, I just wanted to thank the staff. They have worked very hard to help us get to where we are in this stage of the project and request a positive recommendation for our Final Plan and Final Plat. Again, we do have a number of people who are here who are able to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Mr. Chambers said I don’t know if it is necessarily a question, but with the playground associated with the Fox Valley Park District, to my understanding, there needs to be some further discussion in regard to the berm locations.

Good evening. My name is Joe Iovinelli. I’m with Manhard Consulting. We’re the Civil Engineer on the project and I’m going to try and zoom in here really quick. The post playground is located in the center and we are working closely with city staff for the berm on the east side, which is the plan right. There is a drainage ditch that currently runs from north to south along the property line and we want to maintain positive drainage. So we are going to push the berm a little bit to the west, but it will be screened properly from the surrounding development to the east.

Mr. Sieben said I’ll go over the first item. That was the Final Plat. Staff does recommend approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plat for Lincoln Crossing Subdivision on vacant land generally located at the southeast corner of Wolf’s Crossing and Eola Road. We do have 3 conditions:

1. That the Final Plat approval be contingent upon final engineering approval.

2 That the Petitioner shall provide a Plat of Easement for the offsite stormwater management facility prior to Final Plat approval.

3. That the establishment of the dormant Special Service Area (SSA) for the long term maintenance shall be required over all stormwater management area.

MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers

MOTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Anderson

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mr. Sieben said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall, Conference Room B.

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/28/2021. The motion carried.

21-0415 A Resolution Approving a Final Plan for Lincoln Crossing Subdivision generally located at the southeast corner of Wolf’s Crossing and Eola Road (Pulte Home Group - 21-0415 - WH07/4-21.162-Fsd/Fpn - TV - Ward 9)

The Estates has 3 different styles of homes with 4 different elevations for each one, so as you can see, that’s a lot of different styles of homes to be built in this subdivision.

There are buffers all the way around the project, which will be maintained by the HOA.

Particularly important, there are 50 foot buffers along Eola and 35 foot buffers along Wolf’s Crossing, so there’s quite a buffer between those major roadways. Pulte is donating a 4 plus acre park to the Fox Valley Park District. They will improve that park with a small playground. They are working with the Park District in order to have them approve that park site and that playground site that they are looking at. The final aspect of this, which is actually going to be coming up in the next phase of development, which is the Lincoln Prairie by Del Webb component, which is the age restricted housing, this is the pedestrian bridge. I think they talked about this a little bit at Planning Commission previously, but you can see that there’s going to be a pedestrian bridge, which is going to cross over Eola Road. That’s going to be built as part of the second phase, which is an age restricted housing. You can see the pictures. At the top is the graphic of what we anticipate the bridge to look like. The middle shows you where the bridge is going to come through that subdivision all the 1way across the bottom and then the bottom shows the plantings that will be surrounding that bridge area. Finally, I just wanted to thank the staff. They have worked very hard to help us get to where we are in this stage of the project and request a positive recommendation for our Final Plan and Final Plat. Again, we do have a number of people who are here who are able to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Mr. Sieben said for the Final Plan portion, staff does recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plan for Lincoln Crossing Subdivision generally located at the southeast corner of Wolf’s Crossing and Eola Road with the following conditions:

1. That the Final Plan approval be contingent upon final engineering approval.

2 That the Petitioner install streetlights as part of the Eola Road roadway improvements for Lincoln Crossing.

3. That the Petitioner install the sidewalk along the south side of Wolf’s Crossing Road from the east line of the property frontage to Eola Road.

4. That the signage be revised to comply with the Special Sign District.

MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers

MOTION SECONDED BY: Ms. Tidwell

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mr. Sieben said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall, Conference Room B.

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Ms. Tidwell, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/28/2021. The motion carried.

21-0434 A Major Variance for the Property at 15 Hill Avenue, to Allow for a Reduction of the Minimum Parking Stall Width from Nine Feet to Eight and-a-half Feet, Pursuant to Section 5.13-3.2.I of the Zoning Ordinance; to Allow for a Reduction of the Front Yard Setback from Thirty Feet to Fourteen Feet and Seven Inches, and a Reduction of the Exterior Side Yard Setback from Fifteen Feet to Six and-a-half Feet, Pursuant to Section 8.4-5.12.A.i of the Zoning Ordinance; to Allow for a Reduction in the Minimum Ground Sign Setback from Fifteen and-a-half Feet to Twelve Feet, Pursuant to Section 41-4.a.2 of the Municipal Code; and, to Allow for an Increase in the Maximum Allowed Ground Sign Height from Fourteen Feet to Fifteen and-a-half Feet, Pursuant to Section 41-4.a.4 of the Municipal Code. (Chihuahua Tire & Auto - 21-0434 / AU26/2-21.165-V - SB - WARD 7) (PUBLIC HEARING)

Mr. Broadwell said it’s good to see everyone in person again. Before we get started, I just want to point out that there’s actually a typo in the title that the Chairman just read. The exterior side yard setback is actually being reduced from 15 feet to 6½ feet and that’s reflected in the Final Plan, the qualifying statement, the Petitioner’s request and what was advertised to the public. It was just a typo on the staff’s behalf. So I just wanted to make sure that’s on the record and also clear. So I apologize for any confusion. I did update it in the staff report about an hour ago, but sometimes it takes a while for those things to go through, but 15 feet to 6½ feet on E. Benton Street. As we just heard, this is a major variance that the Petitioner is requesting at 15 Hill Avenue. I’m sure you all are familiar with this site. It is kind of at the portion on the east side of the city where Hill Avenue curves south and then intersects with Benton Street. The city has always had traffic concerns for this site and we are really excited to have this Petitioner come forward with this proposal. The variance request is, again, to reduce the parking lot stall widths, the setbacks on Hill and Benton Street, and also the maximum ground sign height and setback. I think that’s a little bit of the background. There is some additional background in the staff report. Right now on the site, there is the existing one story building that’s approximately 800 square feet. If you look at the existing site, the building is actually about as close as 3 feet from the property line, which the building blocks the traffic line of sight that comes around the corner. We’ll get to that in a minute. After that, I would say the Petitioner has provided a qualifying statement, which does an excellent job of summarizing the nature of the request and also the background of the business’s background. We do have the Petitioner here and they can go over the qualifying statement in a little bit. Before that, we do have the site plan, or some plans that the Petitioner has provided. The first thing I want to point out is the sight triangle exhibit, which is in your packet. You can see on the left there, there is the existing sight triangle, which shows how the site is laid out. Then on the far right, I believe, is the modified proposed sight triangle. It is nice to not have to deal with screen sharing. I never quite got the hang of that. Jill is showing it on the screen there for you. The modified proposed sight triangle really shows the distance where the cars can see coming around the corner. The Petitioner has really put together this major variance request based on this. You can see in the Final Plan there’s the 14 foot, 7 inch setback on Hill Avenue. That’s for the parking lot. The building is about 33 feet back from Hill Avenue and then 6½ feet from Benton Street. The landscape, I didn’t really go into that in the staff report, but I also wanted to point out that the Petitioner has formatted the site so that all of, basically along Hill Avenue, there are shrubs that will not impede traffic visibility. Then you can also see the parking stall width there. Finally, you can see the building and signage elevations in the bottom right corner of the drawings. You can see the sign. We did ask the Petitioner to prepare a sign that is, the bottom of the sign is 9½ feet from the ground so that the business can be well advertised without impeding the traffic visibility. So that’s the nature of the sign height request and then also the sign setback request. I think that’s everything. Are there any questions for staff or Ed, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Sieben said we did work for quite a while with the Petitioner. As Steve mentioned, this is arguably one of, I would say, one of the 2 worst intersections in the city as far as sight distance. I know I’ve driven across Benton for 30 years. Sometimes it is a challenge to do that. This will take care of that. We did work with the Engineering Department, the city’s Traffic Engineer, on the exact placement of the parking stalls for when cars are there because you can’t really see past a parked car, so that’s where that was placed. As Steve mentioned the sign, normally we do a monument sign.

That wasn’t going t work here, so we have to make an exception here for a pole sign.

The height is based on the lowest maximum height of the bottom of the sign, so you can see under it looking to your left when you are on Benton. That’s all been played into this as part of the request. I just wanted to state that.

Ms. Tidwell said could you talk about the reduction of the parking space size. Is there precedence for this?

Mr. Sieben said yes. The Premium Outlet Mall has 8½ foot stalls. That was approved in 2001. I’m not sure if Phase 2 has 8½. They may still be 8½, but they could be the regular 9. But all of them on the first phase, they are 8½, so that’s an example where we tried to get as much parking as we could by slightly narrowing that. We actually used to have 8½ in our ordinance until about 20 years ago and then we went to 9 feet.

I guess cars got bigger and stuff.

Ms. Tidwell said have there been any major problems on the other site because of that?

Mr. Sieben said no. We figure this is kind of a destination site. It is to work on vehicles and tires. There’s not a lot of parking spaces there. They did have limited room.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I just one quick question. How often do you get that much variance from the ordinance at one time? It just seems like everything needed to be modified a little bit in order for this particular business to be located at this specific site.

Mr. Sieben said it’s kind of got a lot going for it. If you notice, it is kind of a triangular site on a curve, so you have somewhat of the hardship of that where the standard setbacks, so Hill Avenue is, I believe is it an arterial here, so standard is 30 feet, but that would have really eaten into this development. It is only limited depth of a lot. Yes, there are quite a few, but it was to get it as a, this is a brand new development, a new building, and it is getting rid of a very big problem property. If you go there now, the property has just been kind of a junky storage lot for many, many, many years. I think it was a restaurant before that.

Chairman Pilmer said and I believe despite all the variances, this would actually improve the sight lines from what’s there today.

Mr. Sieben said correct. I believe the Petitioner is here for a presentation.

The Petitioners were sworn in.

Good evening, Alex Lopez with Cordogan Clark Architects, 960 Ridgeway Avenue, Aurora.

I’m Dan Olson with Watermark Engineering, 2631 Ginger Woods Parkway in Aurora. We’re the Civil Engineers on the project. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you guys tonight and to present the project. We’re excited about this new redevelopment of this site. Staff has done a terrific job giving you all the highlights of why we are here, so I won’t relive any of that, but only to say that we’re excited about the opportunity to redevelop here and to improve the sight lines at this location and to bring a new business into the city. That’s always a good thing. It is fun to be part of that project. I’ll cover the site plan real quick. I think I’ll highlight a couple of main things. The first is the amount of variances that we are asking for. It is a mouthful. There are a lot. Ed did a nice job of describing the reason for that, but largely it is a uniquely shaped site and it is at a uniquely shaped intersection that’s a challenging intersection from a sight line perspective. In order to make this work, these variances are necessary in order to make this a safe and effective development for this intersection to clean up what is there today and bring a new business to the site. The reduction in parking stall widths, these things all add up to us being able to pull it off of the corner and allow for the proper sight line to the intersection. That is what’s driving I would say every variance request that we have for this. We want to see that be a safe intersection. We want to be part of that development that cleans up that intersection. Ed did a nice job covering all those and Steve as well. We’ve worked with staff over the last several months, 6 months maybe, to really hone in on the site plan to get something that’s going to work here. We worked with Engineering on the sight lines. We pushed back our building. If you look at the sight triangle exhibit, I’ve given 3 pictures there, if you will, left to right there is the existing sight triangle. That’s what’s there today. The blue is the building that’s there, so there really isn’t a sight triangle until you are right up on the intersection, especially as you are southbound on Hill Avenue. The middle one is what we originally came up with, our sight plan. That improved it a great deal. Then after working with staff and asking for a few more variances in order to make this intersection even more visible, we had to push it back to the south, shrink down some parking stalls, etc. to make that work. So what we end up with is a tricky site that works well and cleans up the intersection and provides good sight lines and hopefully solves a problem and brings an outstanding business to the community. From a site perspective, that’s all I had. I don’t know if you wanted to touch on the building real quick. If you there are any specific questions you have of us on the site or on the building or the signage or any of the variances, that’s what we are here for. Thank you.

Mr. Lopez said first let me start off by saying that Chihuahua is a current business owner in town. They’ve been here for a number of years and they are very excited to clean up that property and, again, just add to the fabric of the City of Aurora. It is a vast improvement. What you see in front of you are actually the 4 main contributing elevations. Right now we are thinking there is going to be 4 bays, 4 service bays, 2 of them a little bit taller to handle a little bit larger of vehicle. There is a lot of glazing that will help, again, with natural light coming into the building. The landscaping really speaks for itself. To talk a little bit about that signage, that’s something that we definitely worked on with the staff and thank you so much for accommodating our request. The building materials, right now we are thinking that is some sort of a masonry hard material. Again, the business owners and the business are here to stay and, again, improve the community. Again, you can see the 3-dimensional renderings of what this project is going to look like. I know it is a little bit easier sometimes to see just the flat elevation, but there is a lot going on in that site and it is going to be highly visible. As you know, it is across from the service station across the street. I guess I’ll answer any questions if you have any.

Mr. Gonzales said I have a question. When I take a look at the design and the 3D rendering that’s up right now, in the evening time, what type of lighting is going to be on during the evening and at what hours, if there is a set time for the hours, around the property?

Mr. Lopez said good question. The sight lighting for the parking lot is going to meet zoning requirements. There are some cutoff light fixtures against the night sky, so there’s definitely ordinances that we have to follow as architects and engineers to avoid light pollution. It really is going to be based on business hours. It is not a 24 hour business, so they will definitely either be dimmed down or turned off outside of just main security lights and, again, following best practices in law. I’m assuming the sight lighting was your question.

Mr. Gonzales said the sight lighting would be correct because in the northeast kitty-corner of the property you do have residential. It is like a peak of it. The other is all commercial. I just wanted to make sure that, and I didn’t see anyone show up tonight to ask any of those questions about the lighting, so I just wanted to make sure that the lighting was set for engineering to be set where it is not going to be so bright that you’ll have residents that will start coming over and asking questions.

Mr. Lopez said absolutely, no. They will be definitely be cutoff fixtures so all the

lighting would stay within the property lines.

Mr. Gonzales said I do have a second question. In this tire business, in some of the businesses that I’ve seen in the Aurora area there seems to be an issue with storage of used tires. Where is the plan on this to store these used tires?

Mr. Lopes said you can see that there are 4 bays and then there is a large open area.

That’s a storage area that’s inside the building and that’s where all the material is going to be kept. There is also a self-contained refuse area as well. We are hoping to keep the site nice and tidy.

Mr. Cameron said I think their other store is up at Indian Trail and Route 25.

Mr. Lopez said yes sir, they have another location there.

Mr. Cameron said it looks to me like there were 2 box trucks used for storing inventory. Is that the program thought of for here?

Mr. Lopez said definitely there is no room on this site to do that, so at this point, not at this site.

The public input portion of the public hearing was opened. No witnesses came forward. The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Broadwell said we don’t typically do recommendations for variances, but I would say based on the Petitioner’s request for parking stall widths to be reduced, parking lot and building setback reductions and ground sign height increase and setback variance, I would say that staff would say that the Petitioner has gone to great lengths to put together a really good proposal.

MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Gonzales

MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Elsbree

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Is the requested variance based on the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the property which results in a particular hardship to the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if a strict letter of regulations were carried out?

Mr. Chambers said yes and not only a hardship to the owner, but also with the approval of this, it provides safety for people that are driving in the area.

2. Is the requested variance based on conditions unique to the property and for which are generally not applicable to other property within the same zoning classification?

Ms. Tidwell said yes.

3. Is the requested variance based on an alleged difficulty or hardship that is caused by the ordinance and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property?

Mr. Elsbree said yes.

4. Is the requested variance in all other respects in conformance to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the city pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said it is in conformance.

Mr. Sieben said with regard to variances, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final vote, so it is approved so you guys can apply for whatever permits you would need.

A motion was made by Mr. Gonzales, seconded by Mr. Elsbree, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried.

21-0447 A Resolution Approving a Final Plat Revision for Lot 2 of Meijer Subdivision, and Establishing Lot 2-2 of Meijer Subdivision (Belle Tire - 21-0447 / NA21/2-21.170-Fsd/R - SB - WARD 10)

Mr. Broadwell said as we just heard, this is for a Final Plat Revision for Lot 2 of the Meijer Subdivision. I’m sure you are all familiar with the Meijer store out there on Route 59. Kind of the background here, there is a provision in the Subdivision code that allows essentially what I called out in the staff report, Chapter 43-8.1, which allows for a new outlot to be established, as it is not considered a subdivision without going through the final plat process, which we are going through now. It says the sale or exchange of adjourning parcels of land between the owners thereof, which does not involve any new streets or easements of access and said exchanged parcel is less than 10% of the original parcel with the remaining parcel maintaining confirming status pursuant to Aurora’s Zoning Ordinance. So we had a Final Plan that went through. It was a BZE Committee Resolution, so it skipped the Planning Commission and went through the entitlements through BZE as an appealable Resolution. That was Belle Tire and their proposal was for a new 1.62 acre outlot for Belle Tire Auto and Repair business there for a 9,800 square foot building. It went through this process and it was approved and then it was determined later on by the Petitioner that this Final Plat process needed to be completed for their own process. I think we have Bruce Goldsmith here and he can go into that a little bit more. That’s essentially the nature of this Final Plat Revision. Belle Tire is currently going through the permitting process and the engineering process and those processes are going well. So it is a little bit backwards from how we usually do things, but that’s essentially the nature of this proposal. Are there any questions for staff at this point?

Good evening, Bruce Goldsmith from the Dykema Gossett law firm representing the Petitioner. This is all a Catch 22. So for reasons that I can’t explain, Meijer did this development without having any outlots platted at the time it was set up. So my client came along and the city said no problem, we have an exception. You can do any lot under the city code without platting. Unfortunately, under the Plat Act, which governs platting of properties, there is no exception that would apply to this particular lot, so it is necessary to actually have a plat. So even though the city would approve this, we couldn’t record a deed without proper platting. I flagged that issue and we are now going through the process so we can have an outlot platted that will allow my client to actually purchase the property from Meijer.

Mr. Broadwell said there is a condition here. Staff would recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving a revision for Lot 2 of Meijer Subdivision and establishing Lot 2-2 of Meijer Subdivision with the following condition:

1. That prior to final Engineering approval, the Final Plat Revision shall be re-recorded with reference to any revised private easements before the public improvements are accepted.

Mr. Goldsmith said so the other Catch 22 is there is an existing stormwater easement going through this lot, so we have to relocate that. That requires Meijer to give a new easement and we can’t do that until the lot is recorded and then they have to record the easement. The plat is going to have a blank as to the recording date of that easement because we won’t have done it at the time of platting. So we are going to have to re-record it. Somebody is going to fill in the blank.

Mr. Broadwell said I would like to add that we worked really hard with the Engineering Department and Bruce to really condense this condition into what we have here and what Bruce explained. I just wanted to point that out.

MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mrs. Anderson

MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Elsbree

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mr. Broadwell said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall.

A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Elsbree, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/28/2021. The motion carried.

21-0455 A Resolution Approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lots 295, 296, 301, 305 and 309-316 of Deerbrook Place Unit 5 located at the southeast corner of Hafenrichter Road and S. Farnsworth Avenue for a ROW Dwelling (Party Wall) (1130) Use (DR Horton, Inc. - 21-0455/OS01/2-21.172-Fpn/R - JM - Ward 9)

Mrs. Morgan said the subject property is currently zoned R-5(C) Multi-Family Dwelling District with a Conditional Use, which is part of the Deerbrook Subdivision Conditional Use Planned Development. The Petitioner is requesting this Final Plan Revision for new elevations on the vacant lots within the Deerbrook Place Unit 5 Subdivision. The 2002 Final Plan and 2003 Final Plan Revision approved 118 townhomes within 24 buildings on the property. Starting in 2005, the subdivision saw the completion of 49 units within 11 buildings. A total of 54 units across 12 buildings remain to be completed. DR Horton intends to develop the vacant lots adhering to the approved Final Plat, Final Plan and Landscape Plan. However, they are proposing new elevations. They will also complete the sidewalks along the frontage of each building.

DR Horton, prior to submitting, went to the city and worked with the Homeowners Association over several months on the elevations that would blend with the existing homes while meeting the needs of the developer. The Board of the Homeowners Association did approve the elevations before submitting to the city. Staff has subsequently added small changes to the elevations, which included some cornice returns and molding along the fascia to better match the existing homes, which DR Horton has provided. Here is a rendering of the elevations that they are proposing. Let me just bring up a map of the current area. As you can see, this is the current Unit 5 Subdivision. You can see that the original developer, Keim, developed a lot of the buildings kind of within the center and a couple of ones along the outer rings as well. So DR Horton is going to develop the ones to the south. All those are empty vacant lots and then there are a few along the north too at Hafenrichter that are vacant and that DR Horton is going to infill with their proposed elevations. I have the Petitioner here if there are any questions for staff.

Good evening. My name is Patrick Cook with DR Horton. I live at 621 W. Jefferson i Naperville. I think Jill did a great job of summarizing the last 6 months of the process here. It’s been lengthy with the HOA and also with Jill and Ed here to get to kind of a consensus among the residents at Deerbrook and make it a win/win/win for the City of Aurora, for us and for the homeowners to finally get a completed subdivision out there.

I’m certainly open to questions that you may have.

Mrs. Morgan said staff would recommend approval of a Resolution approving a revision to the Final Plan on Lots 295, 296, 301, 305, and 309-316 of Deerbrook Place Unit 5 located at the southeast corner of Hafenrichter Road and S. Farnsworth Avenue for a

ROW Dwelling (Party Wall) (1130) use.

MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers

MOTION SECONDED BY: Ms. Tidwell

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mrs. Morgan said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall.

21-0510 A Resolution Approving a Final Plat for Pacifica Square Subdivision located at 4300-4404 E. New York Street and 4424-4462 E. New York Street (Pacific Square III LLC - 21-0510 / NA21/2-21.198-Fsd/R - TV - Ward 10)

Mr. Sieben said the property is currently the Pacifica Square Shopping Center, which has been redeveloped over the last couple of years. Formerly, this was known as the Yorkshire Plaza Shopping Center. It is zoned B-2 with a Conditional Use for a Planned Development. What the Petitioner is proposing on your screen there is a 5 lot subdivision to create ownership groups for each of the lots within the subdivision. Lot 1 consists of the large main “L” shaped retail building, which wraps around the north and west sides of the property. Lot 2 consists of the existing small retail building and small detention pond down at the southwest corner of the shopping center along New York Street. In the center you see a future Lot 3, which also has an extension down to the entrance at New York Street and a portion of the current parking lot. The intent of this lot is that it will be redeveloped in the future with commercial buildings. It’s talked a little bit about it in the qualifying statement from the Petitioner. The city is very excited to have that come in, in the very near future. We’ve been working with the developer on that for some redevelopment within the shopping center. As you know, a when lot of these shopping centers were built, they were really overparked for cars and there is an opportunity here in the center for some additional commercial development.

Hopefully that will be coming to you guys very shortly in the near future. Lot 4 consists of the smaller existing “L” shaped building kind of to the southeast there. Then finally,

Lot 5 is a small retail center, strip center, up at the very northeast corner of the property along Route 59. As part of the proposal, the Petitioner is granting a cross access easement and stormwater control easement over the existing detention ponds on the Final Plat. That sums it up for staff, unless there are any questions of me.

Judy Ni is here representing the development if there are any questions for her.

Mr. Sieben said staff would recommend conditional approval of the Final Plat with the following conditions:

1. That prior to recording the Final Plat, the cross access easement be revised per staff’s comments dated July 16, 2021.

2. That the Final Plat be contingent upon Final Engineering approval.

MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Elsbree

MOTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Anderson

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mr. Sieben said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall.

A motion was made by Mr. Elsbree, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/28/2021. The motion carried.

21-0526 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat for Habitat Acres Subdivision, Located South of Spruce Street and East of North Russell Avenue (Fox Valley Habitat for Humanity - 21-0526 / AU21/1-21.209-Fsd - SB - Ward 4)

Mr. Broadwell said the Petitioner here is Fox Valley Habitat for Humanity. The Final Plat request is for .45 acres of vacant land that is being subdivided here and it is being subdivided per the R-2 One Family Dwelling District lot standards. There should be a parcel map in there that will show us the existing conditions of the lot. This Plat of Subdivision here will allow for 2 new lots that will be developed for one unit dwellings.

As you can see, the lot is zoned R-2. It is there highlighted. It’s width on Spruce Street is approximately 130 feet and it is an interior lot. The surrounding neighborhood, residential neighborhood, is low density residential. This is really the last vacant lot in the area, which is allowing for Fox Valley Habitat for Humanity to make this request to subdivide for the new homes. The lots are being subdivided to meet the minimum lot width and area requirements for the R-2 zoning district, so there is no additional variance being requested. They are going to comply with the applicable infill housing standards that are in the Zoning Ordinance. On the Final Plat you can see that the setbacks that they will comply with and then I think there is also, we had decided that they are going to have attached homes. Maybe we can hear more about what the houses will actually look like, but the houses will be built as a permitting process. I don’t know if there are any questions for staff at this point.

Mr. Sieben said do you want to just talk about the houses.?

Mr. Elsbree said is this similar to the one that’s right down to the east of this lot across Highland?

Mr. Channell said no that is a 1½ story. These will be single story single family dwellings.

Mr. Elsbree said did you do part of that too?

Mr. Channell said yes.

Mr. Elsbree said good job.

Mr. Channell said thank you. My name is Bob Channell. I’m with Fox Valley Habitat

for Humanity. My title is Manager if In Kind Donations, but I do just a little bit of everything.

Mr. Elsbree said you did say it was going to be single?

Mr. Channell said yes, single story.

Mr. Elsbree said 2 single story.

Mr. Channell said correct.

Mr. Cameron said basements?

Mr. Channell said no. It would be a slab on grade.

Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend approval of the Resolution approving the Final Plat for Habitat Acres Subdivision located south of Spruce Street and east of N. Russell Avenue.

MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers

MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Elsbree

AYES: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Gonzales,

Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Ms. Tidwell

NAYS: None

Mr. Broadwell said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, July 28th at 4:00 on the 5th floor of City Hall.

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Elsbree, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/28/2021. The motion carried.

INFORMATIONAL ONLY ITEM

21-0544 Informational Item: Re-Organized Zoning Ordinance

Mr. Sieben said this was just something our Law Department just wanted to bring to your attention. It is available in your packet. We can also print them out if you want it.

It is kind of the re-codified Zoning Ordinance with all the new numbers. We made some modifications back in January, some of it with processes and other things. The Zoning Ordinance, instead of an Appendix was put actually into the Muni Code as Chapter 49. I believe that’s what this is, so it is really the re-codified Ordinance with the changes that were done in January. This is just information only.

This Information/Discussion Only was Forwarded to the Committee of the Whole.

PENDING

ANNOUNCEMENTS

As you know, we went down to 9 Commissioners in January. A lot of our Boards and everything were kind of consolidated. Just recently, Ken and Carol have put in resignations to the Commission and this will be their last meeting. I’m glad we finally got to meet in person. We do have plaques for each member. I believe they are all signed.

Ms. Tidwell said if I could just clarify, I didn’t resign. I did not reapply.

Mr. Sieben said thanks. You guys did not reapply.

Mr. Sieben then read the Resolutions honoring Ken Cameron for his 18 ½ years of service and Carol Tidwell for her 3 years of service.

Mr. Cameron said just for my inquisitiveness, what are the terms of service now at this standpoint?

Mr. Sieben said my understanding is it was just at the RAP Committee yesterday, so the other members are being reappointed and there are 2 new members, one from Ward 10 and one from Ward 1 and my understanding is it will go to the August 10th City Council meeting. We’re not planning on having a meeting August 4th, so the next meeting we are planning is August 18th, so it would be 6 of you and then we have 2 other new members. We are still short 1.

Mr. Cameron said what are the terms?

Mr. Sieben said I’m not 100% sure. You will be getting something very shortly regarding that. I believe they are going to be staggered at first. It is kind of random what you are going to get and then after that it is going to be every 3 years.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said basically saying in 3 year rotation?

Mr. Sieben said I think it’s going to be 1, 2 and 3 scattered and then after that it will always be 3. No term limits.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Pilmer adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.

https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07212021-2655

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

City of Aurora

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.

Donate