City of Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission met March 16.
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. Chambers, Mr. Gonzales and Mrs. Owusu-Safo. Mr. Choudhury, Mr. Elsbree and
Mr. Kahn called in and excused themselves from the meeting.
OTHERS PRESENT
The following staff members were present: Mr. Sieben, Mrs. Morgan, Mr. Broadwell
and Mrs. Jackson.
Others Present: Rich Johnson (1950 Richard Street) and Shelly Tucciarelli (Visionary
Ventures Not For Profit Organization).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
22-0186 Approval of the Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 2, 2022.
A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Gonzales, 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
22-0107 Requesting approval of a Major Variance pursuant to Section 34-406 of Chapter 34 of the City of Aurora Code of Ordinances for the property
City of Aurora Page 1
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
located at 1950 Richard Street, to allow for a trailer to be parked
between the primary structure and the front lot line (Richard Johnson -
22-0107 / AU18/2-22.031-V - SB - Ward 5) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mr. Broadwell said as you just heard, this is the major variance for 1950 Richard
Street. We do have the Petitioner here, who we’ll bring up in a minute to give us some
background. A little bit more information here. I’ll pull up the Plat of Survey for the
property, which will give you some context here. The provision in the Zoning Ordinance
that’s actually being varied here is 105.13-3.8.D.ii.a, which essentially allows for a
vehicle to be parked in front of the primary structure on a residential property basically
between the front of the primary structure and the lot line. Kind of moving back from
that, the Petitioner owns one trailer that is used essentially for work that’s about 14
feet in length that has been parked in front of the garage on the drive for a number of
years now. The trailer itself is, based on the qualifying statement, is 7 feet wide, about
14 feet long. This 14 feet length does not include the, I guess we’re calling it, the
tongue, or what hitches the trailer to the vehicle, but it sounds like that’s between 1½
feet to 2 feet. Then the trailer is 7 feet, 9 inches tall. So that’s the nature of the
variance and kind of, I guess, the characteristics of the trailer itself. One thing that I
wanted to point out, that’s included in the staff report, is that there are additional
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that kind of tie into parking vehicles on residential
property. So for example, those other vehicles might be a boat or recreational vehicle,
but as far as this variance is concerned, the Petitioner is parking one trailer, which is
allowed on this lot, on the residential property, so that’s not being varied. The trailer is
not exceeding the maximum length of 20 feet per the Zoning Ordinance, so that’s not
included in the variance, and then he is also parking it on the driveway and not in the
public right-of-way. The variance is very specific to this vehicle being parked between
the primary structure and the front lot line. The Petitioner did write a qualifying
statement, which was in your packet, which you can see and he can talk more about
that in a minute, but one thing I wanted to point out about the property itself in regard
to the hardship is that you can see the house here. It is kind of “L” shaped and when
we refer to the primary structure in the staff report, we’re talking about the entire
structure. In the staff report, I referred to the front of the house, which is, I guess, the
livable area and then the front of the driveway, the front of the garage, which is the
garage itself. But as you can see, the front of the house is about 30 feet, a little under
30 feet, about 29½ feet setback from the front property line and then the front of the
garage is about 45 feet based on the Plat of Survey, and then there’s like a 15 foot
gap kind of between the face of the garage where you can see it says 20.4 feet, the
width there, measuring back to the front of the house. So there’s this 15 foot gap
where the Petitioner has been parking his trailer to this point. The “L” shape of the
home does kind of provide kind of an area where the trailer can be parked out of the
30 foot setback, mostly parked out of the 30 foot setback and screened from the
neighboring properties and from the street. What I’m pulling up right now, the property
research sheet, you can see the house, the Petitioner’s home, and it is highlighted
right there. Then you can actually see the trailer right there, the white box there on the
bottom left. The house itself, you can see, is one of only a few of these similarly “L”
shaped houses on the block. You can see the neighbor’s house there to the west.
The trailer is basically flush with the neighbor’s house. There is, I guess, some natural
screening on the property. I think that’s everything. Any questions for staff at this
point?
Chairman Pilmer said any questions of staff? Hearing none, I would ask the Petitioner
if they would like to come forward.
The Petitioner was sworn in.
City of Aurora Page 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
I’m Richard Johnson. I’m the owner at 1950 Richard. I tell everybody we’ve lived here
28 years and they named the street after me when we moved in, but they don’t believe
that. My wife Carrie of almost 38 years is here. Like I mentioned, we’ve been there for
28 years. First of all, good evening to the Commission and the Zoning people. Steve
kind of laid out a lot of the issues with this. I’ve had a trailer in front of there since
2005. I originally got a citation from somebody in the city in 2011, I believe, and we
kind of talked about it and then with the setback, I had permission to leave it there.
So I had not heard anything for such a long time and then I’m not sure when the date
was, maybe 2018, I had another citation on that. I explained that in 2011 I was allowed
to have it. They looked it up and said yes, I see that, I’ll void my case. Then a
decision was made to say well you can have that trailer there, but if you get a new one,
that won’t be allowed. I’m was a little confused by that, but we’re here now to explain
that. When I got the new trailer, which was a little over a year ago, I got another
citation and they said you got a new trailer, that wasn’t allowed, even though I never
agreed to that. Just to go a little in reverse, the reason I got that trailer, and I had the
other one for like 15 years, was because it got rear-ended, so it no longer safe to drive,
stuff falling off the back, and it was not secure, so I had to get another one. I do
handyman work. I try to stay busy doing that. I also have a DJ business where I do
weddings and stuff. Before COVID I was doing anywhere from 90 to 100 events a year.
That helps me pay for kids in college and a little added income. If I can interject the
fact that I was an Aurora police officer for 14 years. I ended up going out on disability
in what was called a Line of Duty disability where I had blew my legs out and had some
surgeries and ended up having a knee replacement and I was awarded what they call a
Line of Duty disability. So I get a pension on that, but because of state law, because
state law has statutes on police, fire, and I believe correction pensions, that I don’t get
any increase until I turn 60. I may look 60, but I’m not quite there yet. I’ve got a
couple more years, so honestly, I have not had zero increase since then. My wife
works at a veterinary hospital and was working mainly just 3 days a week. Just started
back almost full time now. Now that our kids are grown, we have older kids, but I’m
putting one in college through the University of Illinois-Chicago. If you guys have kids,
you know what the cost of college is. One, I try to stay busy and I work. In that trailer
is literally a working, rolling workshop. I have tools in there, there’s electric in there. I
even have shore power in there to where I can charge batteries for inverter to have
power remotely if I need it, mainly for lighting is what I mainly use it for. Then on
weekends I pull some of that stuff out and roll in the sound equipment and do my
music stuff on the weekends. I’ll leave that where that’s at. The big reason why I can’t
have it stored anywhere; one, the cost of it would be offsetting what I do, not all of it,
but a good portion of it. Plus I have a lot of fears of security with the thousands of
dollars compiled over the year of tools and things like that, music, the sound
equipment. That is a big issue. Plus I have cameras all around my house that watch
this thing. I have Ring plus a security system. That’s a big portion of why I can’t have
it there. I can’t have it in the garage because a normal garage has a 7 foot header and
most trailers won’t fit in there unless you have, and it would be major to try and do that,
so it won’t fit in the garage. It would have to be in almost an outdoor storage, so
security is a big issue for me and the amount of equipment that’s at risk. If I have it
stored somewhere, then the insurance goes up as well. We’ve talked about the
citations I’ve received, and I was instructed that I could do this zoning variance and I’ve
kind of followed through with great instructions with Steve and Ed and we’ve come to
this point. I can mention too that I personally have not heard anything from my
neighbors. My neighbor that’s directly to the west of me which, I think, Steve had
mentioned, it was kind of like was a physical barrier, if you will. When I originally had
that citation in 2011, they asked for a letter from her that it was okay with her and she
doesn’t oppose of that. She did that and I assume that’s on record here in the city as
City of Aurora Page 3
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
well. Like I said, we’ve been there a long time. I would ask for your consideration in
this. It is pretty much my whole work life. I don’t like to sit around. With all the
injuries and stuff I’ve got, even my kids say Dad you’ve got to quit doing that.
Honestly, if I sit around, I get worse, so I like to stay busy. I think that’s about all I
have to offer. I hope that kind of explained everything and I’m happy to answer any
questions that anybody has.
The public input portion of the public hearing was opened. No witnesses came
forward. The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Pilmer said staff won’t have a recommendation, but if you want to read the
Findings of Fact.
Mr. Broadwell said I’ll read the Findings of Fact. As you just said, we don’t do the
recommendation, but we do kind of provide our thoughts. I can do that as well.
1. The major variance request is based on the particular physical surroundings of the
subject property, as the Petitioner is able to park his trailer in front of the primary
structure while keeping it mostly out of the minimum front yard setback
2. The major variance request is based on conditions that are unique to the subject
property, as the trailer is parked in one of the few “L” shaped homes on this block, or
within the impact area, which provides additional parking area and screening for the
trailer to be parked outdoors on the subject property.
3. The major variance request is based on a hardship caused by the Zoning
Ordinance, as the trailer is not otherwise allowed to be parked between the primary
structure and the front lot line, despite having an additional, approximately 15 feet, of
driveway leading to the face of the garage, which extends past the face of the home
that is closest to the public right-of-way.
4. The major variance request is in all other respects in conformance to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, as indicated in the staff
report.
Mr. Sieben said and if I could just follow up what Steve said. Like he said, we don’t do
a recommendation on variances, but as the Findings of Fact state, this is kind of a
unique shaped house and even though this doesn’t meet the letter of the law because
it is in front of the structure because that portion of the home is basically at a 45 foot
setback versus the rest of the house, which is at the 29 or 30 foot setback. This is
tucked away back there behind the typical 30 foot setback, so staff felt this was kind
of a unique situation with the shape of the house.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mrs. Owusu-Safo
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Chambers
AYES: Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs.
Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Chairman Pilmer said we are to evaluate the proposal with respect to 4 questions for
our Findings of Fact and I would ask, unless there’s any additional discussion on these
4 points, we incorporate what was in the staff’s report into our Findings of Fact.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
City of Aurora Page 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
MOTION SECINDED BY: Mrs. Anderson
AYES: Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs.
Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Mr. Sieben said actually with variances, Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
vote, so it is approved.
A motion was made by Mrs. Owusu-Safo, seconded by Mr. Chambers, that this
agenda item be approved. The motion carried.
22-0111 A Major Variance for Minimum Floor Area Ratio pursuant to Sec. 34-403 and 34-406 of Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Aurora,
Illinois for property located at 631 and 641 S. Lake Street to vary Sec.
III.A.1.4 of the Fox Valley Apartments-Lincoln School Plan Description to
remove the minimum floor area requirement within the historic Lincoln
School building (Fox Valley Apartments, LP / Lincoln School - 22-0111 /
AU28/1-22.032-V - JM - Ward 4) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mrs. Morgan said so if you recall, this project came before the Planning and Zoning
Commission back in November for the Rezoning and Conditional Use Planned
Development and Final Plan and Plat. With that Plan Description, we had originally
required a minimum of 420 square feet for the floor area. That’s what the plans at the
time had showed, so that’s what we put in the Plan Description. When the Petitioners
took the project, if you recall, the project is using Historic Preservation Tax Credits as
part of their finance, as well as some city funds being part of the project, part of those
tax credits required them to be reviewed, the interior and exterior, by the National Park
Service. The National Park Service came back and said that some of the interior
partition walls needed to be preserved in order to get the tax credits. The Petitioner
was able to go back and reconfigure the floor plan to preserve those partition walls,
but in doing so, they had to reduce 2 of the units down to 300 square feet. All of the
rest of the units meet that minimum 420 square feet. It is just 2 units that are being
affected in order to be able to get the Historic Preservation Tax Credits. Here is the
floor plan. Are there any questions for me?
Mrs. Owusu-Safe said I have one. So was the 420, was that an ordinance or was it
just because their original floor plan description showed 420? It is not anywhere that
we require a minimum of 420?
Mrs. Morgan said no. We do have minimum requirements for most of our residential
portions, so that 420 was altered from what’s traditionally included in the Zoning
Ordinance because they were showing 420. What is the Zoning Ordinance, do you
remember Ed? Is it 450?
Mr. Sieben said is it is typically 450, but we went down to 420 because, I think, their
smallest unit was a little over 420, so we put that in there. We could have put a
condition in there that per the National Park Service standards and then we wouldn’t be
back here. So this is purely because they had to save certain portions.
Mrs. Morgan said in the future we are thinking maybe to make sure we have a little
more flexibility in these National Park Service…
Mr. Sieben said so this is kind of like a city imposed thing because that’s what they
were showing.
City of Aurora Page 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
Mrs. Morgan said and this is only for the historic school. The new construction has to
meet our standards.
Mr. Sieben said new construction would be different.
Mrs. Morgan said so it is unique because of the historic existing school.
Mrs. Owusu-Safo said the existing constraints of the building is causing this.
Mrs. Morgan said yes.
Chairman Pilmer said the space was there that they could move, but they can’t
because of the designation.
Mrs. Morgan said correct.
The Petitioner was sworn in.
I’m Shelly Tucciarelli, 232 S. Oak Street, Itasca, Illinois. Just thank you so much for
this opportunity to extend this variance to the Commission. Again, like we said, we
worked really hard with this adaptive reuse and once it was submitted to NPS, the
National Park Service, those were the comments that we received back, to keep those
walls. Our architect did go in and reconfigured everything and this was our best
solution.
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. Morgan said staff has the following comments regarding the Findings of Fact:
1. Staff believes the variance is based on a particular physical surrounding, shape or
topographical condition that will result in a hardship due to the site containing a historic
school and that the reuse of the historic building is not feasible without the assistance
of the Historic Preservation Tax Credits.
2. Staff believes the request is unique to the property due to the site containing one
of the few remaining historic progressive era schools that the city is supportive of
preserving.
3. Staff believes the Plan Description’s minimum floor area requirement is causing
the hardship as it will not allow the floor area plan to be altered in a manner that would
preserve the interior spaces and that the hardship was not created by the developer.
4. Staff believes that the major variance conforms in all other ways to the Fox Valley
Apartments – Lincoln School Plan Description and to Chapter 49 of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Aurora.
Mrs. Morgan said and as mentioned, we do not provide recommendations for a
variance, so the staff would note that the staff believes the request is based on the
physical hardship of adaptively reusing the historic building and the adaptive reuse will
benefit the City of Aurora.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mrs. Anderson
City of Aurora Page 6
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 2022
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Gonzales
AYES: Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs.
Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Chairman Pilmer said we do have our Findings of Fact. We have 4 questions to ask
regarding this case and, again, would add that unless there are specific additions or
changes that we incorporate what was in the staff’s report.
MOTION OF APPROVAL WAS MADE BY: Mr. Chambers
MOTION SECONDED BY: Mrs. Anderson
AYES: Chairman Pilmer, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs.
Owusu-Safo
NAYS: None
Chairman Pilmer said then, again, I think that is the final, so that is approved.
A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Gonzales, that this
agenda item be approved. The motion carried.
PENDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Sieben said our next meeting will be the regular meeting on April 6th and we will
have a full 9 member Commission then. We have a new member, I think, next week,
but she will be available April 6th.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mrs. Owusu-Safo, that the
agenda be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Pilmer
adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03162022-2856
Alerts Sign-up