City of Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission met Nov. 3.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
Mrs. Owusu-Safo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
The following Commission members were present: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn and Mrs. Owusu-Safo. Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson and Mr. Elsbree called in and excused themselves from the meeting.
Mr. Sieben said just to summarize, Chairman Pilmer and Vice Chairperson, Shanita Anderson, are not here tonight, so you will have to, by voice vote, nominate a temporary Chairperson for tonight.
Mr. Choudhury nominated Mrs. Owusu-Safo to be the Vice Chair. Mr. Chambers seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote.
OTHERS PRESENT
The following staff members were present: Mr. Sieben, Mrs. Vacek, Mr. Sodaro, Mr. Broadwell, Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Jackson.
Others Present: Peterson Wilson (Mickey, Wilson, Weiler, Renzi, Lenert & Julien
P.C.), Daniel Rezko (DAC Developments), Adam Lavey (Pappageorge Haymes Partners), John Pagliari (Panattoni Development Company, Inc.), Sven Moravec (1498 Elder Drive), and Holly Strossner (1984 Bayview Lane).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
21-0857 Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 20, 2021.
A motion was made by Mr. Gonzales, seconded by Mr. Chambers, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo 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 minutes to do so.
No one came forward.
AGENDA
21-0663 An Ordinance Establishing a Conditional Use Planned Development, Approving the DAC Developments Plan Description and amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to an underlying zoning of DF Downtown Fringe District for the property located at 100 N. Broadway (DAC Developments - 21-0663 / AU22/3-21.241-CUPD/Ppn/Psd - TV - Ward 1) (PUBLIC HEARING)
A motion was made by Mr. Choudhury, seconded by Mr. Kahn, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
21-0664 A Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plan and Plat for DAC Development Subdivision on property located at 100 N. Broadway for a Multi-Family Dwelling (1140) Use (DAC Developments - 21-0664 / AU22/3-21.241-CUPD/Ppn/Psd - TV - Ward 1)
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Choudhury, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
21-0663 An Ordinance establishing a Conditional Use Planned Development, approving the DAV Developments Plan Description and amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to an underlying zoning of DF Downtown Fringe District for the property located at 100 N. Broadway (DAC Developments – 21-0663 / AU22/3-21.241-CUPD/Ppn/Psd – TV – Ward 1) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mrs. Vacek said the subject property is currently a parking lot owned and operated by the Dolan family with General Manufacturing District with a Conditional Use zoning. This area has long been envisioned for high quality residential housing. Our Seize the Future master plan identifies this area along the Fox River being a neighborhood that residents enjoy easy access to the first class commuter facility and exciting live performances at the new accessible park, now which is the RiverEdge Park. In July of this year, the City Council approved the Redevelopment Agreement with DAC Developments for the construction of a new market rate 246 unit multi-story residential building. So what is before you tonight is the request to establish the Conditional Use Planned Development and to change the underlying zoning district to DF Downtown Fringe District. The details of the request include the approval of the Plan Description with variances from our Zoning Ordinance and our Building Code. The Zoning Ordinance variances includes the modification to allow residential and accessory uses on all floors within the building and modifications to the building, dwelling and structure standards to reduce the number of individual balconies, decks, or patios to a minimum of 45% of the units. Also to reduce the amount of brick required on the parking facility, and a modification to the off-street parking and loading standards to reduce the parking requirement to 1.26 spaces per dwelling unit. There are also some building code variances, including the modification to reduce the isolation requirements and to reduce the percentage of masonry on the exterior building to 43%. There is also language in the Plan Description that establishes floor area requirements for dwelling units, minimum setbacks, and requires a parking management plan. Along with this proposal, the Petitioner is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plan and Plat. The Preliminary Plat request is just to combine the 3 lots into 1 parcel to allow the construction of the building. The Preliminary Plan proposal includes that construction of a new market rate multi-story residential building. The proposed building consists of 5 stories with a total of 246 units. The units will be a combination of studios, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms ranging from 405 square feet to 1,200 square feet. There’s a total of 310 parking spaces, which is located in the parking garage and 4 surface spaces by the main entrance for short-term and long-term loading. One of those parking spaces will be reserved for residential units. The remaining .26 will be reserved for guest parking. I will turn it over to the Petitioner unless you have any questions for me.
The Petitioners were sworn in.
My name is Daniel Rezko. I’m with DAC Developments. Our address is 640 N. LaSalle, Suite 605, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
I’m Adam Lavey with Pappageorge Haymes, the project Architect. Our address is 640 N. LaSalle, Suite 400, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
Mr. Rezko said that you for inviting us this evening. We’re excited to be here, as we always are, presenting our project. This is 100 N. Broadway, as Tracey mentioned. It is currently a parking lot owned by the Dolan family. Our firm is DAC Developments and we travel in packs. We bring our architect, our contractor, project manager and project engineer with us when we come up here, so happy to answer any questions you all have. We’re a Chicago company and we specialize in transforming downtowns by bringing class A new highly amenitized rentals. We’ve done this successfully in the Village of Wheeling as part of their downtown transformation. We are currently doing this successfully in the City of Des Plaines and we look forward to bringing our vision to the City of Aurora. Of course, each project is unique. Each city and suburb is unique and we’re blessed to have this opportunity because we have the river and we have a city that’s very supportive of and wants to see this come through. I’m going to stop talking and I’m going to hand it over to Adam, our Architect, who will walk through the plan. We’re available to answer any questions at the end.
Mr. Lavey said thank you for the opportunity to present to you. It’s a great project and a very unique opportunity to mix both a downtown environment with the river. As a part of taking advantage of that, we’re trying to create a connection between that downtown and the river and how this building will actually live. We’ve taken basically a residential building, a very dense residential building, oriented it toward the river and we are really favoring the river and creating opportunities that interact with the river. Even though we have an urban site that fronts Broadway, we’re trying to take people from Broadway to the river through the architecture. What you see on his main image is within that courtyard of the building, we are connecting directly to the river. Most courtyard buildings don’t have an open side. This has an open side that really opens to the river. We are connecting Broadway, and you’ll see this in the plan and some of the renderings of the front side. A very transparent Broadway façade that would allow you to see, sense and feel the river from the street façade. Compositionally, you can see the interaction of the RiverEdge Park and the building, which is close to the center top, which would have a roof deck looking toward RiverEdge Park and creating a sense of community for the occupants of the building. You can also see the courtyard and then the interaction of the building, which is sighted very closely to the river. A street façade, this is an older image, but as Tracey mentioned, there’ll be a motor court off of this corner, one of the changes from a massing standpoint, but it will give you a protected entry. It will also give you a place for short-term deliveries and long-term space so that your drop-off, if somebody comes via Uber or even a pedestrian, is walking to a covered entry rather than something that is walking the street to a sheer façade of a building. Then the interaction of the building, this would be looking roughly from where the Casino is at looking north upriver and the interaction of how we’re landing the building kind of gently on the river side. The presence of the residential units is elevated above the river. This is a view looking north of the street façade. The parking garage is to the left. There is ongoing consideration of what the parking garage will ultimately look like. There is much more masonry introduced on the latest imagery. On the left, you’ll see kind of some character images on how we think that we can interact with the public spaces that are between the building and the river itself and also the amenities, so very natural interaction between the river and the building. The image on the right shows the connection of vehicles, pedestrians and bikes, which the city has done a pretty nice job for a downtown area being able to get in and out of the city on a bicycle, which is very important for people in the rental market. We’ll describe a little more about how we plan to deal with that within the building itself. Here are some character images of some garage cladding to introduce a more honest appearance of the garage, but still make it very edgy and sharp for the limited amount of façade within the building. This is a first floor plan. What I was talking about previously, that light blue area in the front, would be a very transparent part of the building, so if you are standing on the sidewalk on Broadway, you’re literally looking at the river through the building and through the courtyard. The area that’s represented by that large X is really about a 2½ story aperture from the courtyard looking at the river, so you’ll get this wide expanse as you are looking out to the river and really get a sense of the river from within the complex and also the connection from the street façade. On the left you see the parking garage, which is laminated on 3 sides with residential. There is also a pool in the middle. This is strictly a residential development. So what we’ve labeled as a coffee shop really is a coffee shop that’s an amenity for the tenants rather than a market, a Starbucks, or something like that. We’d envision incorporating things like your package delivery to a lounge, so if you are waiting for something, you’re not kind of waiting in the hallway for the delivery of that package or waiting on those terms. As Tracey mentioned, there are some residential units on the street level, but they are tucked in behind the building, so nothing on Broadway would be a residential use on that right-of-way. This is essentially the river level, which will be raised up a little bit from that river level. That does have some units that ground themselves toward the river, but they are elevated up 4 to 5 feet so they’re not really on that grade level. They create a little bit of the separation, a little bit more sense of security for those units and they are treated more like a townhouse than they are a unit that you primarily access from a corridor. You’re really accessing that unit more like a townhouse. The light blue area on the right corner is kind of like a bike lounge, so it connects to the bike path. It will be a bike shop, that kind of stuff. The grey area that’s really a part of this plan is a terraced kind of Spanish steps down from the courtyard to the river. That helps breaks the aperture that I talked about earlier. Then a typical floor plan is a full courtyard building as you go up through floors 2-5. The parking garage really lands in each floor. Your connection to your parking spaces, your dedicated parking spaces, are on the floor that you live. You really have kind of an attached parking garage, or a garage that you walk to you on your own level, trash shoots and things like that that are a part of day to day life happen on the way to the parking garage and those kind of things. It is a natural progression, or processional, either coming to your unit or leaving your unit. Some sample floor plans. In all cases, we are creating kind of a space. People are referring to them as COVID spaces these days, with built in desks and those kind of things that make it easy to throw a laptop down, work for a day at home and that kind of stuff. In this particular plan, you are seeing a 1 bedroom and then a standard studio unit that is well amenitized and shows separate sleeping spaces from living spaces, a fully amenitized kitchen, washer and dryers. Then a standard 1 bedroom that has a balcony. So these would be all of the outward facing balconies. As Tracey mentioned, 43% of the units have an outward facing balcony. There are no balconies facing into in courtyard. All the balconies are 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms facing outward, so every unit facing outward of the building will have a balcony that is more than a 1 bedroom unit. A sample 2 bedroom unit, a split 2 bedroom is what we envision. All of these have balconies. It minimizes the circulation space within the units, so you are taking all that square footage, not putting it in the hallways, you are actually utilizing that for living space within the units. Here is a sample, again, of a 2 bedroom corner unit with slightly larger balconies. This is the smallest unit that we envision. This is a sample plan of a 405 square foot studio space that has really a separate functional area for your bathroom, kitchen and then a pretty nice living and sleeping space all incorporated into about 405 square feet. These are the duplex type townhouse units that are closer to the river level, so you have a living level and then a 3 bedroom second floor. These actually may invert. We may put the living space above the sleeping spaces depending on how we work out the garage interaction because we’re thinking that potentially these could be private garages off of the basement level into these units. This is the Wheeling project that Danny had mentioned and DAC has developed, some images of that, and then some sample of images of the depth of what Pappageorge Haymes has been doing for 40 years. High rise projects here and then mid-rise projects that are more apropos to the project that we are developing presently. We are happy to answer any questions, but delighted to be here.
Mr. Chambers said I have a question. For the parking garage, is that going to be just limited to the residents of those units or potentially open to the public for a fee?
Mr. Lavey said it will not be open to the public, but there are guest parking spaces available, so you would have to have a guest pass essentially to park in the garage.
Mr. Chambers said and if someone would be renting say a 2 or 3 bedroom, how many parking spaces would they receive?
Mr. Rezko said they would get 2 to 3. The parking ratio is 1 to 1 on a bedroom basis.
Mr. Kahn said have a question. Is there retail space available for public use?
Mr. Rezko said not for public use.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said what is the price range that these apartments will potentially go for?
Mr. Rezko said that’s one of the reasons for our kind of wide unit mix. Adam showed a
400 square foot studio and the reason for that is so that we can offer a class A apartment, a fully amenitized building, for around $1,000. Then we range all the way up to a 3 bedroom, you know, the duplex units for families or folks in perhaps a higher price range.
Mr. Kahn said I have one more question. How does this impact the traffic on Broadway and the City of Aurora and especially congested areas?
Mr. Lavey said there’s been a full traffic study done by KLOA. They are a reputable firm that specializes in traffic. That has been made available to the city. There isn’t a ton of impact, actually, to the traffic itself based on the amount of cars, and the load that Broadway can support presently. Those studies have been made available to the city.
The public input portion of the public hearing was opened. No witnesses came forward. The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Vacek said before I give the recommendation, I just wanted to go over the Findings of Facts for the Conditional Use.
1. The project will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the development as this will actually bring much needed residents to our downtown and improve the overall economics and strengthen the social fabric of the downtown.
2. The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or diminish or impair property values as the multi-family residential building will help promote the city’s position for a regional center and will have a positive impact on the local businesses and service providers, which will establish a desirable quality and general livability of the city.
3. The development will not impact the normal or orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district as the proposal fulfills the vision and enhances the image and physical appearance of the city’s downtown.
4. There is adequate water and sewer capacity to serve this project.
5. The project does provide adequate ingress and egress. The development will utilize the existing signal access point at Spring Street, which is actually shared with the property to the south, and the proposed northern access point will actually align better with the Roundhouse and the hotel that’s across the street.
6. The Conditional Use does in all other aspects conform to the applicable regulations of the DF zoning district.
Mrs. Vacek said as for the zoning:
1. Staff did note that the physical development policies have been met.
2. The proposal does represent the logical establishment of the requested classification in considering the area, as it allows high density residential development and eliminates the manufacturing zoning along the Fox River.
3. The proposal is consistent with the desirable trend of development in the area as it has long been envisioned for new high quality residential housing, which will utilize the local businesses, service providers and entertainment services in the area as well as the train station across Broadway.
4. The rezoning will allow uses that are more suitable than the existing manufacturing zoning district, as it has been the city’s vision to create a vibrant riverfront community and enhance the public access to the Fox River.
5. The rezoning is consistent with the existing area, as it is keeping with the downtown uses.
Mrs. Vacek said with that, we do recommend approval of the establishment of the Conditional Use Planned Development approving DAC Developments Plan Description and amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to the underlying zoning of DF Downtown Fringe District for the property located at 100 N. Broadway.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Choudhury
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Kahn
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
FINDINGS OF FACT – CONDITIONAL USE:
1. Will the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use be unreasonably detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare?
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I believe it does not as recommended by the staff.
2. Will the conditional use be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted or substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood, factors including but not limited to lighting, signage and outdoor amplification, hours of operation, refuse disposal areas and architectural compatibility and building orientation?
Mr. Gonzales said there should be no impact.
3. Will the establishment of the conditional use impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district?
Mr. Chambers said based off of the staff’s report, nothing should be impeded.
4. Will the proposal provide for adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities as part of the conditional use?
Mr. Chambers said yes, and those are listed in the staff report.
5. Does the proposal take adequate measures, or will they be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets?
Mr. Chambers said based off of the staff report, the traffic study has been done, so there should be no issues with ingress or egress.
6. Does the conditional use in all other respects conform 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 Council pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission?
Mr. Choudhury said according to the staff report, everything is in compliance with the regulations.
FINDINGS OF FACT - REZONING:
1. Is the proposal in accordance with all applicable official physical development policies and other related official plans and policies of the City of Aurora?
Mr. Chambers said yes, and these are listed in the staff report.
2. Does the proposal represent the logical establishment and/or consistent extension of the requested classification in consideration of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area of the property in question?
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I believe these represent the logical establishment and it is actually a great enhancement to the location.
3. Is the proposal consistent with a desirable trend of development in the general
area of the property in question, occurring since the property in question was placed in its present zoning classification, desirability being defined as the trend’s consistency with applicable official physical development policies and other related official plans and policies of the City of Aurora?
Mr. Choudhury said yes, according to the staff recommendation.
4. Will the rezoning allow uses which are more suitable than uses permitted under the existing zoning classification?
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I believe the rezoning actually makes the area more appealing and much better in the proposed location.
5. Is the rezoning a consistent extension of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area?
Mr. Choudhury said yes.
Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
21-0664 A Resolution approving a Preliminary Plan and Plat for DAC Development Subdivision on property located at 100 N. Broadway for a Multi-Family Dwelling (1140) Use (DAC Developments – 21-0664 / AU22/3-21.241-CUPD/Ppn/Psd – TV – Ward 1)
Mrs. Vacek said staff would recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving the Preliminary Plan and Plat for DAC Development Subdivision on the property located at 100 N. Broadway for a multi-family dwelling use with the following conditions:
1. That the Petitioner shall provide an executed Plat of Easement mylar for a fire lane easement over the private drive on the adjacent property to the south prior to or at the time of Final Plan.
2. That the Petitioner shall provide to the city a recorded copy of a cross access easement and temporary construction easement over the private drive on the adjacent property to the south prior to or at the time of Final Plan.
3. That the Petitioner shall prepare and provide a traffic study as part of the Final Engineering submittal at the time of Final Plan.
That one sounds like they have provided it. I would like to leave this on here just to make sure Engineering has fully looked at it.
4. That the Petitioner shall enter into an agreement with the city for the use and maintenance of the improvements and landscaping on the adjacent city property to the west prior to or at the time of Final Plan.
5. That the proposed improvements in the Broadway right-of-way be contingent upon receiving Illinois Department of Transportation review and approval.
6. That the Petitioner receive approval from ComEd to 1) allow the proposed building encroachment into the ComEd easement or 2) relocate the ComEd lines and/or easement or 3) vacate the portion of the ComEd easement where the building is encroaching. If the Petitioner cannot obtain approval from ComEd, then the building will need to be relocated so that it does not encroach with the ComEd easement.
7. That the approval be contingent upon Final Engineering approval.
8. That the developer shall engage a third party construction testing and inspection company to perform and report to the building official weekly Sound Transmission and Impact Insulation Class Construction details and special inspections demonstrating compliance with all STC and IIC details to achieve a wall STC design of 56 and a floor IIC design of 56.
MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Choudhury
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
21-0757 An Ordinance amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to rezone Property located at 2120 Sullivan Road from O(C) Office District with a Conditional Use to ORI(C) Office, Research, Light Industrial with a Conditional Use (Panattoni Development Company - 21-0757 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn - JS - Ward 5) (PUBLIC HEARING)
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Kahn, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
21-0758 A Resolution approving a Final Plat on vacant land located at 2120 Sullivan Road (Panattoni Development Company - 21-0758 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn - JS - Ward 5)
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Kahn, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
21-0759 A Resolution approving a Final Plan for the property located at 2120 Sullivan Road for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services (3300) Use (Panattoni Development Company, Inc. - 21-0759 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn - JS - Ward 5)
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Kahn, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
21-0757 An Ordinance amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to rezone property located at 2120 Sullivan Road from O(C) Office District with a Conditional Use to ORI(C) Office, Research, Light Industrial with a Conditional Use (Panattoni Development Company – 21-0757 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn – JS – Ward 5) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mr. Sodaro said so what we are looking at today is a rezoning of a currently vacant property from Office District with a Conditional Use for a Planned Development to Office, Research, and Light Industrial with a Conditional Use for a Planned Development. This property was actually annexed in 2001 to the ORI district. In 2005, it was rezoned after an office park was platted and planned to Office District. What we are doing here today is just going to be putting that back into the zone that it was originally planned for. When it was originally planned and annexed, there was a proposal for a warehouse development. It never really happened so the developer and the owners went along with an office park. Concurrently with the proposal, the Petitioner is requesting approval of a Final Plat. When the office park was originally planned in 2005, a series of smaller lots were created in order to account for individual buildings, different detention basins and the parking, so what this is going to be doing is vacating all easements, getting rid of all those lots and creating one large lot that the site and the detention basins will be resting on. The main portion of this development is the Final Plan Petition. What it’s going to be doing is creating roughly a 357,000 square foot warehouse. At the time, no tenant is proposed for the building. Two access points are proposed for the development. They will both be tying into existing. One will be tying in an existing drive. The other one will be creating a new drive off of Sullivan Road, a new access point. Originally when the office park was created, it was planned that there would be access where the Aurora Christian School has access to. We wanted to keep the truck traffic and passenger traffic away from that as much as possible, so we had them move the access point into Sullivan Road on the bend there. The developer will also be closing off the originally planned access point as you can see there. They will be curbing that off and creating a sidewalk, connecting that sidewalk along where that access point would have been. Let me go back to the landscape plan then. As you can see, we have had the developers put heavy landscaping in between the residential subdivision to the east and to the proposed warehouse on the site. We also have them extending that landscaping along the southern property lines and along the detention basins, which will be bordering the Vaughn Aquatic Center. Currently 138 trainer spaces are proposed. That’s all going to be taking place on the southeastern/southern portion of the property with the passenger parking taking place on the western, northern and eastern portions. Again, all these are to be screened from residential developments and from the Park District property with heavy landscaping. I’ll quickly touch on the photometric plan as well, as I feel as that would be important. There are no current light fixtures proposed to be in the parking lots. All lights fixtures will be on the building itself, none lighting up the trailer parking. As you can see here, we have light level of zero on the entire border of the property line. The landscaping will also help buffer any additional lights on the fixtures on the warehouse itself. I believe that is all I have. If you have any questions for staff, I’d be happy to answer; otherwise, we do have a member of the Petitioners here.
Mr. Gonzales said I have a question for you. I don’t know if maybe the Petitioner would answer this or not, but on the eastern border of that, it backs up to residential.
You’re talking about the landscaping that would go there. Are we talking about a berm? If it is a berm, do we have an elevation height on that?
Mr. Sodaro said no berm is currently proposed. What we do have is a line of evergreen and canopy trees lining both the property line and the parking lot and that’s continued from the street all the way wrapping around there and as well as along the parking isle.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said what is the distance between basically the buffer between…
Mr. Sodaro said the buffer, it is well over 150 feet.
The Petitioner was sworn in.
My name is John Pagliari. I’m with Panattoni Development Company. We are located in Rosemont, Illinois, 6250 N. River Road, Rosemont, 60018. This is our third building that Panattoni has built in the City of Aurora. We’ve actually purchased over 5 other buildings in Aurora, so we are well versed with industrial in the I-88 corridor. We’re very positive of the speculative nature of the building. It is a spec building, as we call it, so we build it and try to lease it to 1, 2, or 3 separate tenants potentially. One thing staff mentioned, and they’ve been great to work with by the way, was the area to the east, there is a 100 foot buffer next to the residences over there. One of our initial plans basically had the eastern drive isle connected at the existing intersection there, but we would have came into that buffer, to the 100 foot buffer, and they really told us not to do that, so we shifted it closer to the middle of the property and it seemed to work out for everybody, but we really took great care in staying away from those townhouses east of our project. Really, there was a traffic study done also from KLOA, which is a reputable firm and I think the previous Petitioner used also. For the most part, the majority of the traffic will come from the west. People will be coming and going off I-88 at Orchard Road just west of the property. We see that entrance more utilized, the eastern entrance not quite as much, but we need both of them to make the project flexible and traffic flow properly. Again, this is a state of art building, probably what would be a $40 or $50 million dollar project for us, so we’re pretty excited to be here.
Thanks for having us.
The public input portion of the public hearing was opened. The witnesses were sworn in.
My name is Sven Moravec, 1498 Elder Drive, Aurora, Illinois 60506. I only had prepared remarks until I saw the presentation. I was wondering if I could ask the presenter some questions.
Mrs. Vacek said you can ask the Commissioners and they’ll get back to them.
Mr. Moravec said I have 5 questions that he brought up. The first question I have for this property is what is the egress of the trucks on the property? Will they only have access on the west side of the building or will it be both east and west? My next question is, is the parking lot on the east side of the building part of the 150 foot stated buffer zone? My next question, they mentioned trees to plant as part of the buffer. What size trees will they be purchasing to start and how long until they are mature trees to be able to actually block light and noise? I did not hear the height of the building mentioned. I was wondering what the height of the building was to be able to block our view from our houses. Those are the questions I got raised from the presentation because I had not seen any of the information for the proposed building before.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I wrote 4 down. Are you sure you had 5?
Mr. Moravec said well the other one I’m not sure it really stands. It is hours of loading and which way do the lights point. Even though you don’t point them at the houses, it still creates light pollution toward our house. I believe that was covered by the trees. Now for my prepared remarks. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the Board, staff and guests. Thank you for allowing me time to speak. My name is Sven Moravec and live in Fox Croft with my wife and 7 year old son. I’m not here to speak only for my family, but for my neighbors as well. There are 66 family units that reside on Elder Drive on both sides of the street, which is located on the east side of the property in question. 35 of those have bedroom windows that open feet from the property in question. They all face west. I have spoken to 25 of the 35 family units in question. 24 oppose this project and approved my prepared remarks. We are against this zoning change for two main reasons; our property values and noise, air and visual pollution. It is fairly well established that living next to a commercial zone does decrease property value due to degradation such as traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution and visual pollution. It is easily concluded that light industry type buildings such as the proposed warehouse, distribution and storage would have a higher rate of set degradations than an office zoning, which it currently is. These degradations would result in diminished appeal for prospective buyers. As for quality of life for residents, we already live near this type of a business with a large buffer. 35 families with bedrooms facing west currently have about a ½ mile buffer, which is the empty field. We still hear the further warehouses everyday at 4:00 a.m. starting with garbage trucks banging dumpsters, beeping trucks and dropping trailers. Changing the zoning district will decrease that ½ mile buffer to about 40 feet to the property line.
We would be able to experience the full experience of the business. Noises would be much louder, the shaking of the ground more pronounced, and we would also be able to smell the entering and exiting and idling trucks. We would not be able to enjoy a nice summer day with windows opening more nor sleep with them open without being woken earlier than needed. We could speculate on health concerns all of these issues could bring to light, but knowing that there could be problems is enough. So as residents of our community and of this city that we love, please do not allow this nuisance to be built on our back porch. There are also two side notes that pertain to this property. The furthest east and south corner of the property directly behind my house at 1498 Elder is perpetually holding water and is not the retention pond. I hope that if this project continues with all the added cement, paved lots cement, they build enough retention ponds to handle all the watershed properly because it currently does not seem adequate. The other side note is that the current sewer systems have dozens of missing covers that people could fall into and get hurt. That is all I have to say on this subject for the moment.
Hi. My name is Holly Strossner. My address is 1984 Bayview Lane, Aurora, Illinois 60506. I just have to say Sven covered almost all the questions and comments that I had written down. I don’t want to repeat anything, but my questions were going to be how tall is this industrial building going to be? How is it going to affect the townhomes that are built there already? What view are they going to have? They’ve been there for years with just a view of open land and now they are going to be looking at a tall building. As far as property values, what is that going to do all the property values of the townhomes that are surrounding? Then I do have a big concern about the stormwater and drainage around our area. Behind where I live, I live on the south side of Bayview Lane, we have the Fox Croft Lake. That overflows across Elder Drive into those retention ponds. They are really full now. They are actually overflowing, as Sven has said, by his property at 1498 Elder, there is water pooling there. How is this going to affect when a big industrial building is built? Where is all this water going to go to?
So that’s one of my big concerns. Also, the trucks making noise 24/7. We hear like at 4 o’clock in the morning they start and it is constant. You hear the beeping, the slamming. It gets to you after a while, especially in the summertime when we’re outside. I think that’s about all.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said can the Petitioner come up and maybe answer some of these questions? The first question he had was egress of the trucks. Basically, what do the movements look like?
Mr. Pagliari said well the movements will be on both the east and west side of the property, so they’ll typically come in from the west and head out east. I’m guessing.
Again, most of the movements will be on the west side because they are going to go back to Orchard Road and I-88. I’d say the majority of the traffic report indicated the majority will come and go from the west side, just because it is I-88 access. They will, occasionally come on the east side too.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said the next question was is the parking included in the buffer, the 150 foot buffer?
Mr. Pagliari said the buffer is actually 100 foot. There is a 100 foot setback. I think staff mentioned 150 foot. The 150 foot is actually to the building to the building corner, so there is not a building within 150 feet of the property, but the buffer, correct me if I’m wrong, I think the actual green space buffer is 100 feet.
Mr. Sieben said the standard zoning requires a minimum of 100 feet. We just measured it. Actually the minimum is 120 feet to the parking lot that’s near the south end of the development. It actually averages about 220 feet to the parking lot from the townhome property line.
Mr. Pagliari said with a couple of new detention ponds on the east side of the property, which will certainly help alleviate the existing flooding problem now, those will be good looking ponds on that east side of the property.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said can you highlight which ones are the existing ponds and how much wider are we making the proposed ponds?
Mr. Pagliari said they are existing in the area currently, but these are larger. They are being enlarged north and south on the east side, and on the south side. Really all the ponds are inadequate currently for what we are proposing so we will certainly make them larger.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said maybe this is a question for staff. I know a little bit about detention pond design, so this basically takes consideration of current conditions and the proposed impervious areas that’s going to be added and then whatever the required storage is going to be, right?
Mr. Pagliari said correct.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said so this current flooding, that’s already being taken into account for the proposed conditions?
Mr. Pagliari said correct.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said the next question was tree sizes along the buffer.
Basically, what is the starting tree size that you’re looking at and then based on the type of trees that are chosen, how tall would they be? How long would it take?
Mr. Pagliari said those trees are called out in the landscape plan. A landscape plan has been submitted and they are varying sizes and species along that eastern border, across the whole site, but they are varying sizes and species through the property. You’d have to locate each one individually to determine size of each, but we took care to increase the size and amount of landscaping on the east side just because of the residential area to the east.
Mr. Sieben said if I could just add onto that. We actually, Jake and I, worked with Panattoni, we actually added well beyond the minimum landscape requirement on the east side because of Fox Croft. Typically a canopy tree, which is a shade tree, is put in at a 2½ inch caliper and then an evergreen tree is usually 6 to 8 feet tall, so we did a mix of canopy trees and a lot of evergreen trees so you get year around cover there. There is an existing tree line right on the property line and some of that will be preserved. You are actually going to get a new double row of new landscaping. You’re going to get one that’s closest to the east property line right behind the townhomes. You have a large new detention area and then on the west side of the detention area closest to the parking area, you’ll have another row of landscaping, so it will be kind of double row, plus saving some of the existing trees on the property line.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said then the next question he had was the proposed
height of the building.
Mr. Pagliari said the inside of the structure is 36 feet clear, we call it. The outside perimeter wall will be about 40 feet in height.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said and your typical basically 2 story townhome is…
Mr. Pagliari said probably 35.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo so you have 40 feet plus or minus?
Mr. Pagliari said correct.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said then hours of operation?
Mr. Pagliari said 24/7 we’re assuming.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said another concern he had was light pollution. I know you shared the lighting plan and closer toward the street it was pretty much so no light pollution.
Mr. Pagliari said right. I think Jacob showed a zero foot candle on the perimeter, which is obviously low. I see their points. We certainly want to help. Those are the things that we’ve been doing, trying to eliminate the light, really beef up that landscaping, get rid of that eastern access point that lined up perfectly with an already called for intersection, an already built intersection, but we came way west of that toward the middle of the site and tried to do all these things to alleviate the pressures on the townhomes next door.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I think you answered the next question. I don’t know if there are really sanitary sewer issues there.
Mr. Sieben said I think he mentioned there are some manholes in your field that maybe had covers off.
Mr. Moravec said there are more than 2 dozen manhole covers that are off of an existing sewer line, which is about a 5 or 6 foot drop and there are a lot of them missing. It is dangerous.
Mr. Pagliari said it is not our property yet. We’re under contract to purchase this site from a nearby church and they had some big plans to do an office development and they put in a lot of infrastructure. There was actually a lot of manhole covers and sewer and water all over the site that we’re going to end up ripping out and starting all new with new utility. It’s only 5 or 10 year old, but we do things right and we come in and clean it all up and it will be much better than what’s out there now for sure.
Mr. Sieben said could I just add a little bit? I think Jacob touched on it in the staff report, but this property was actually annexed and zoned ORI, which is the typical warehouse/distribution/light industrial back in 2001, kind of like what’s to the west of it where you have the former Kraft, I think now it is DHL next door. So this was all ORI immediately going to the west of Fox Croft. Fox Croft was kind of the townhome transition and then you went into the non-residential as you go to the west toward Orchard Road. We actually had a real similar plan. It was just slightly oriented a little bit different back in 2001 for a warehouse/distribution. I was actually here then. They actually ended up not building and what happened was a developer came in to do a multi-building office park back in 2005. It was actually a Helmut Jahn design, the famous architect who, unfortunately passed away last year in Kane County, but it was an architecturally designed office campus there. With the great recession, that went away. It was never activated. They actually put in a lot of the utilities. What the gentleman and lady said about some of the storm sewers and things like that, that was put in, I think, some of the hydrants and stuff, so that will actually have to be taken out and reconfigured and new stuff put in. This has always been shown as non-residential to the west of Fox Croft. Unfortunately, there just is no office market now. We would love to see an office market here. There is just no new office market really pretty much anywhere. So the reason for the request then is to really go back to what the original zoning and plan was for this area. The first thing we said when John came in with his group was that we really, really wanted to respect and buffer the Fox Croft townhomes. They’ve been there since, I think, the late 70’s or 80’s and that’s what we’ve been trying to do. John has done a few other developments in Aurora and has really followed through on what we went over.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said I think there was one last question and I think it comes up every time there’s a commercial property next to residential area and that’s property value concerns. Maybe in your line of business, have you noticed anything and have there been any review of impacts of surrounding property values?
Mr. Pagliari said it is hard for me to say and it is certainly just a guess on my part. We are more on the commercial/industrial side than the residential side, but I’ve got to think that a new shiny building that’s almost 300 feet away at a minimum is going to look better than a bunch of manhole covers missing and a field that’s got all sorts of dangerous issues for young kids walking around and ponding everywhere. We’ll have beautiful landscaping and nice detention basins there to look over. I don’t think it will hurt.
Mr. Sieben said and as I stated before, sometimes the townhomes are used as a transition to non-residential areas. There’s another Kraft development just to the north of Fox Croft on the north side of Sullivan just on the westside of Edgelawn there and when that came in, that’s actually about an 800,000 square foot building, we did a lot of heavy landscaping and things like that to really respect Fox Croft. We know Fox Croft is there and this really is trying to kind of match what we did to the north of Sullivan there. We are trying to do the same thing here.
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said from my notes, one last question and that is regarding noise pollution. With 24 hour operation, what are some of the mitigating factors that have been looked into?
Mr. Pagliari said the buildings are fully insulated, so any noise that happens is going to mostly be inside. They are exterior docks, so the trucks back up. We have seals around the docks, so forklifts come in and out of the truck kind of right inside the building. I’m not going to say it is no noise at all, but fairly quiet. You do have the backup signals when a truck goes in reverse. You are going to have that. With the buffer and the landscaping around it, those are the big impacts that keep the noise to a minimum.
The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Sodaro said before we go into the recommendations, staff would like to briefly discuss the Findings of Fact typical for a rezoning petition.
1. Staff believes that the proposal is in accordance with all applicable official physical development policies and other related official plans and policies of the City of Aurora. With the Final Plan process, we’ve been able to ensure that they are developing per our codes and ordinances.
2. Staff believes that the proposal represents the logical establishment and consistent extension of the requested classification in consideration of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area of the property in question. The surrounding area consists of several other ORI zones and uses and the subject development sufficiently buffers the neighboring residential uses. As Ed and myself has stated, this was originally planned for ORI as well before making a brief switch to the office.
3. Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with a desirable trend of development in the general area of the property in question, occurring since the property in question was placed in its present zoning classification. Again, it was zoned ORI previously. It is now zoned office and we are switching it back to ORI.
4. Staff believes that the rezoning allows uses which are more suitable than uses that are permitted under the existing zoning classification. The property has sat vacant for roughly 16 years since the rezone to office with a conditional use was made, so we believe that this opens it up to something that is clearly more marketable to developers.
5. Staff believes that the rezoning a consistent extension of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area.
Mr. Sodaro said staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Chapter 49 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora, by modifying the zoning map attached thereto to rezone property located at 2120 Sullivan Road from O District with a Conditional Use to Office, Research, Light Industrial with a Conditional Use.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Kahn
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo said is there a motion to accept the staff’s recommendations on the Findings of Fact?
MOTION OF ACCEPTANCE WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Choudhury
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mr. Sodaro said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
21-0758 A Resolution approving a Final Plat on vacant land located at 2120 Sullivan Road (Panattoni Development Company – 21-0758 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn – JS – Ward 5)
Mr. Sodaro said staff would recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plat on vacant land located at 2120 Sullivan Road with the following condition:
1. That the documents be revised to incorporate the Engineering and Zoning and Planning staff comments.
MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Kahn
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mr. Sodaro said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
21-0759 A Resolution approving a Final Plan for the property located at 2120 Sullivan Road for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services (3300) Use (Panattoni Development Company, Inc. – 21-0759 / AU07/4-21.284-Rz/Fsd/Fpn – JS – Ward 5)
Mr. Sodaro said staff would recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plan for the property located at 2120 Sullivan Road for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services use with the following condition:
1. That the documents be revised to incorporate the Engineering staff comments.
MOTION OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Kahn
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mr. Sodaro said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
21-0842 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat for INC Board Subdivision, Located North of West Indian Trail and East of Mercy Lane (INC Board,
NFP - 2021-0842 / AU09/4-21.305-Fsd / SB / WARD 6)
Mr. Broadwell said so as we heard, this is the Final Plat for the INC subdivision. Generally speaking, it’s located north of W. Indian Trail and east of Mercy Lane. It is a 13 acre subdivision. Some of you may know it. I’ll actually pull up the parcel map while I’m talking to give you a sense of where it is. It is more specifically located east of the Hope E. Wall Elementary School, which is directly to the west and southeast of the Presence Mercy Medical Center. The nature of the proposal here is that the Petitioner is subdividing, or consolidating, the 7 parcels that you can see highlighted here on the aerial into 3 lots. What I was just showing was the existing conditions, so you can see there are these 7 lots. The lines here aren’t exact, but they can see that they are kind of a little bit out of, you know, I guess, it’s an older lot setup up, I guess, and maybe the Petitioner who is here can talk more about it, but they are subdividing, excuse me, consolidating into these 3 lots on the Final Plat here. This first page here is just the easements that are on the lot and I will point out that they are adding a cross access easement over the entire 3 lots. Here you can see the final lots. There are 3 lots. As I mentioned in the staff report, Lot 1, which is here on the south is approximately 8 acres and includes the existing 2 southern buildings that we just saw on the property map that were previously parcel 5 and parcel 6. Lot 2 is here on the north side, the northern portion. It is approximately 4 acres and includes the northern building that’s located on previous parcel 1. Lot 3 is approximately ¾ of an acre. It is vacant in the northeast corner. You will notice that there is a 10 foot building setback line here. I just wanted to point out that this is not the actual zoning setbacks, but the setback that was required per the building code standards for building separation.
None of the existing buildings are crossing any of the lot lines. Are there any questions for staff at this point?
My name is Peter Wilson. I’m counsel for INC Board and with me this evening is Dalila Alegria, the Executive Director, if you have any questions. I just wanted to give you a little bit of a brief history. Starting almost 50 years ago, the predecessor of INC Board started receiving some of these lots from the Sisters of Mercy. They were all vacant at that time and there were a total of 7 lots. Subsequent to that time, there were the 2 buildings constructed that crossed various lot lines. The southern most one is occupied by the Association for Individual Development, or AID, and the northernmost building is occupied mostly by Gateway and AID has expressed an interest in acquiring their building. Rather than trying to reconstruct legal descriptions that broke up several of the lots that the buildings already cross, it made more sense to do a subdivision with the 3 lots, 1 lot for each of the existing buildings and 1 lot for the vacant parcel. So that was the basis for this. There is no new development, no new streets, nothing is changing, no new zoning, or anything like that. It’s really just a clean up of these 7 parcels into 3.
Mr. Gonzales said just a quick question. I noticed on the prior survey, I think it was parcel 3 and 4, there were trees, forest in that area. Are those remaining, or are those coming down?
Mr. Wilson said nothing was changed and there wouldn’t be any change.
Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend approval of the Final Plat for INC Board subdivision located north of W. Indian Trail and east of Mercy Lane.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Choudhury
AYES: Mr. Chambers, Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Kahn, Mrs. Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mr. Broadwell said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, November 10th at 4:00 in Council Chambers.
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Choudhury, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 11/10/2021. The motion carried.
PENDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Sieben said we do have a city sponsored Ethics Training in 2 weeks on November 17th. That’s at 6:00 p.m. It will be here. We are doing it also with the Preservation Commission and the FoxWalk Committee. I am not sure if we are going to have a Planning Commission meeting then at 7:00. We may not, but Sue will let you know before then. Then we are also anticipating, so in December then, we will have our regular meeting. It would be December 8th, so it is actually the 2nd Wednesday of the month because there are 5 Wednesdays in December, so December 8th we will plan on having a Planning Commission regular meeting. We anticipate having the holiday dinner the next week on Wednesday, December 15th at 6:00 p.m. at the Roundhouse.
Mrs. Vacek said and then we may or may not have one on the 22nd.
Mr. Sieben said there may be a working meeting on the 22nd. We’re not sure yet, but just so you are aware.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Choudhury, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Vice Chairman Owusu-Safo adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11032021-2741
Alerts Sign-up