Dupage Policy Journal

City of Aurora Planning Commission met July 5.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

Call to Order:

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

Roll Call:

The following Commission members were present: Vice Chairman Cameron, Mrs. Anderson, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer and Mr. Reynolds. Chairman Truax, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Duncan and Mr. Garcia called in and excused themselves from the meeting.

Others Present:

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

Others Present: Daniel D. Dolan (Dolan & Murphy), Aminul Karim (315 W. Downer Place), Shirley Flaherty (314 W. Downer Place), Elizabeth Tellez (305 W. Downer Place), Ray Anderson (439 W. Downer Place), Marc Straits (20 S. Chestnut Street), Pam Shelton (427 W. New York Street), Steve Hansen (Steven W. Hansen Architect), Dan Walker (Fox Valley Farms) and David Schuett (Fox Valley Farms).

Approval of Minutes:

17-00598 Approval of the Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 21, 2017.

A motion was made by Mrs. Cole, seconded by Mrs. Head, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.

Agenda:

17-00479 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning Property located at 90 S. Chestnut Street from R-5 Multiple Family Dwelling District to R-2 One Family Dwelling District

Mrs. Vacek said the Petitioner is requesting to downzone the property at 90 S. Chestnut Street from R-5 to R-2, which is a One Family Dwelling District. The subject property is currently a single family house with R-5 multi-family zoning. The property was converted from a 2 unit to a single family house in 2004. Property Standards was looking into this. They were questioning it for a license for rental. We did realize that it was a single family, so they are coming through to downzone to a single family residential zoning district. It is consistent with the R-2 zoning and the surrounding neighborhood.

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 staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning the property located at 90 S. Chestnut Street from R-5 Multiple Family Dwelling District to R-2 One Family Dwelling District.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Anderson

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Cole

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: None

Findings Of Fact:

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?

Mrs. Cole said 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?

Mr. Pilmer said this is consistent with the surrounding properties.

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. Reynolds said the proposal represents the highest and best use of the property.

4. Will the proposal maintain a compatible relationship with the traffic pattern and traffic volume of adjacent streets and not have an adverse effect upon traffic or pedestrian movement and safety in the general area of the property in question?

Mrs. Anderson said there should be no change in traffic pattern and traffic volume at all.

5. Will the proposal allow for the provision of adequate public services and facilities to the property in question and have no adverse effect upon existing public services and facilities?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said there should be no adverse effect on existing public services or facilities.

6. Does the proposal take adequate measures or will they be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to maximize pedestrian and vehicular circulation ease and safety, minimize traffic congestion, and not substantially increase the congestion in the public streets?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said there should be no change to the existing pattern.

7a. Is the rezoning a consistent extension of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area?

Mrs. Anderson said it is consistent with the area.

7b. Is the rezoning consistent with the 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?

Vice Chairman Cameron said this is a downzoning and in general in this area that would be part of the policy of the City of Aurora.

7c. Will the rezoning permit uses which are more suitable than uses permitted under the existing zoning classification?

Mr. Pilmer said I think it is the city’s Comprehensive Plan to make this a single family residence so it would more suitable with the new zoning classification.

Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mrs. Cole, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/13/2017. The motion carried.

17-00491 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning Property located at 1030 Front Street from R-4 Two Family Dwelling District to R-3 One Family Dwelling District

Mrs. Vacek said the Petitioner is requesting to downzone the property at 1030 Front Street from R-4 Two Family Dwelling District to R-3 One Family Dwelling District. The subject property is currently a single family dwelling with R-4 two family dwelling district zoning. The property was converted to a single family several years ago, so this would just be matching the use of the property. The surrounding properties are all zoned R-3, so the zoning would fit with the surrounding area.

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 staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning the property located at 1030 Front Street from R-4 Two Family Dwelling District to R-3 One Family Dwelling District.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Cole

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Owusu-Safo

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: None

Findings Of Fact:

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?

Mrs. Cole said these are all 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?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said the rezoning makes it consistent with all the other properties in the area.

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. Reynolds said this proposal represents the highest and best use of the property.

4. Will the proposal maintain a compatible relationship with the traffic pattern and traffic volume of adjacent streets and not have an adverse effect upon traffic or pedestrian movement and safety in the general area of the property in question?

Mr. Pilmer said there should be no change with the existing traffic pattern.

5. Will the proposal allow for the provision of adequate public services and facilities to the property in question and have no adverse effect upon existing public services and facilities?

Mr. Pilmer said they are already in place.

6. Does the proposal take adequate measures or will they be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to maximize pedestrian and vehicular circulation ease and safety, minimize traffic congestion, and not substantially increase the congestion in the public streets?

Mrs. Cole said there should be no change whatsoever in the ingress and egress for the pedestrians in the area.

7a. Is the rezoning a consistent extension of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area?

Mr. Reynolds said the rezoning represents the highest and best use of the property.

7b. Is the rezoning consistent with the 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. Pilmer said it is consistent with the desirable trend of development in the general area and the surrounding properties.

7c. Will the rezoning permit uses which are more suitable than uses permitted under the existing zoning classification?

Vice Chairman Cameron said the existing zoning classification is different than that of the neighborhood and, therefore, a downzoning would be preferable.

Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mrs. Cole, seconded by Mrs. Owusu-Safo, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/13/2017. The motion carried.

17-00494 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by Rezoning Property located at 315 W. Downer Place from B-1(S) Local Retail Business District to R-4 Two Family Dwelling District (Aminul Karim - 17-00494 / AU21/2-14.242-Rz - AM - Ward 4) (Public Hearing)

Mr. Sieben said good evening Commission. The property in question lies on about a quarter acre of land. It is 10,669 square feet. I’ll go ahead and give a little bit of a background and history of the property and the zoning history of this block because it all ties into together. The subject property is currently zoned B-2(S), which is Local Retail Business District zoning with a Special Use for a Planned Development. It is part of the Galena Square Special Use Planned Development. Additional information on the legislative history of the property can be found in the Property Information Sheet which you have. The property, along with the other residential buildings on Downer and Chestnut on this block, were rezoned to B-1(S) from R-5, which is multi-family zoning, in 1980. Then a Planned Development for, and this had different names, it’s been called Galena Square, Chestnut Square and originally it was Downer Plaza, so in 1982 a Planned Development was approved for this to allow for a shared parking concept for all the properties, which also tied into the existing commercial uses on Galena Boulevard. There are 9 residential, or former residential properties in this block. They have the following uses, I’ll go from east to west on Downer and then on Chestnut:

305 W. Downer is an owner occupied residential unit with an accounting business.

315 W. Downer, which is the current property under consideration, has 1 apartment upstairs and a vacant commercial space downstairs.

323 W. Downer is 6 apartments.

325 W. Downer is 4 apartments.

331 W. Downer has 1 unit, which is a rental.

333 W. Downer has 2 apartments.

30 S. Chestnut has 1 unit, which is a rental.

26 S. Chestnut is 3 apartments.

20 S. Chestnut is a business use.

The history of 315 W. Downer is that it was, prior to 1989, a 4 unit apartment building. The previous owner, which was the Bakers, purchased the property in 1989 and they converted the first floor to their business use, which was a marketing company, and then they left 2 apartments up on the second floor. In 1994 they got a Special Use Revision to allow a mixed use for them to live in the building as essentially a single family home while continuing to operate their marketing business out of the building as a home occupation. They lived in the property until 2012 when it was foreclosed on and the current owner, Mr. Karim, purchased the property in 2013. A history of the block, this was envisioned that the former residential properties would eventually convert to a business use on the first floor or the whole property or allow a business on the first floor and continue to have residential upstairs. Shared parking does exist for all the buildings. Since 1980 when this was zoned B-1, this has not panned out for most of the properties for business use. There are only 2 businesses that have gone into these homes, as I stated, which is 20 Chestnut and 305 Downer. The majority have been residential. Most of the conversion homes to businesses in the area have occurred along W. Galena Boulevard over the last 30 years, not along Downer Place, which has remained residential in character. After over 3 years of owning the property at 315 W. Downer, the owner, with the help of his local commercial broker, has not been able to attract business use to the first floor. Specifically with the property, the structure is located on a legal conforming lot that does meet the R-4 Two Family zoning bulk restrictions, which is what he is requesting to zone it to. The details of the request includes the rezoning to 2 units. The property, again, is served by 11 parking spaces just on his lot. The property is about 2,941 square feet. There is about 1,500 square feet on the first floor and about 1,400 square feet on the second floor. He would like to convert the first floor to a residential unit. The unit consists of, my staff report says 2 bedrooms, but the upstairs is actually a 3 bedroom unit. The first floor, which I have toured, is set up for either a 2 or a 3 bedroom. It could be either with 1 bath. That is a summary of the project. Unless you have any questions of me, the Petitioner and his broker are here.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I have a question. Since all the remaining properties are still B-1, is there a consideration if all the other ones also want to change those into residential zoning? If you do it for this one, you have the remaining 8 around it.

Mr. Sieben said this property in particular is on probably, I think, the largest lot of the group and also is set up, it is 2,900 square feet. I don’t think that the staff would support making some of the multi-family conforming. That would be up to the City Council. I think this property potentially lends itself just because of the size of it. I don’t think staff, and typically we would not support like a 6 unit and a 4 unit becoming conforming, or even a 3 unit. I think that’s just probably too dense for the area, but because this is 2,900 square feet and potentially the request is for a 2 unit, that was the reason that we are moving this forward.

Mrs. Cole said I have a question now. So all the other buildings are zoned B-1, but they are actually residential, they would be considered legal non-conforming?

Mr. Seiben said exactly, correct. So as long as they maintain that they can continue to be licensed that way. If there was ever a fire or damage or they removed units they could not go back above what they had before. With B-1, B-1 does not allow residential on the first floor. However, it does allow residential on an upper floor as long the square footage of the residential does not exceed the square footage of the commercial on the first floor. That’s what B-1 would allow.

Mrs. Cole said so if one of these buildings were to burn, they could still have residential on the second floor, but the first floor would have to be a business?

Mr. Sieben said correct.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said is that the main reason why they are asking for reclassification because they want to convert the first floor into residential?

Mr. Sieben said that is exactly correct. Right now we cannot issue a permit for that to be residential on the first floor. That has to be business and that is their request and they can explain that.

Mrs. Cole said I have another question and I know it was in the report and I did not write it down, I’m sorry. How many parking places, and I’ve walked back there so I’ve seen the parking places, but how many parking places are there behind these row of buildings?

Mr. Sieben said Linda, honestly I don’t have that figure. Maybe the Petitioner may have that number. There are 11 that are actually on this lot, but there is shared parking. There is a lot more than 11 there.

Mrs. Cole said and that area back there could use a little TLC.

Mr. Sieben said absolutely. I think after the public hearing and maybe after the neighbors discuss, I have some other comments so I could chime in on that too, but you are correct.

Mrs. Cole said a little weed and feed minus the feed, just weed.

The Petitioners were sworn in.

I’m Dan Dolan, 770 Morningside Avenue in Aurora.

I’m Aminul Karim representing 315 W. Downer Place in Aurora.

Mr. Dolan said well there isn’t a lot to add to what Ed advised you of. Amin came to Dolan and Murphy a year or a year and a half ago. They’ve been trying to lease this property for the best part of 3 years, 31⁄2 years for business and just had no activity. These were major brokers, other brokers and ourselves. We worked the property very diligently and had no luck whatsoever and then came up with the thought that perhaps it could be converted to residential. It lays perfectly well for that use. As was stated, most of the block is potentially, not potentially, but is used for residential.

Mr. Karim said I tried my best. I tried to work with the city as well to find tenants. I changed like 3 or 4 real estate agents and finally ended up with Dolan and Murphy. We tried all kinds of advertisements, handouts and everything. We didn’t have a single inquiry. I’m talking about inquiry, not an offer, on this property. My problem is what I have seen, and it was a good try, but the thing is because the first unit is empty it invites kind of problems like drug dealings. I have complained myself. I called the city police twice. It is dark in there and nobody lives in there and nobody is there in the day time and nobody is there in the night time. My tenant upstairs called me a couple of times on things and activities going on in here. I think it is very important to have some occupants in the property for the safety of the neighborhood and to bring the value to the city so that we don’t have this kind of dealings or incidents happening in quiet areas like this.

Mr. Dolan said do you have any questions you’d like to ask? Thank you very much.

The public input portion of the public hearing was opened. The witnesses were sworn in.

My name is Shirley Flaherty. I live at 324 W. Downer, directly across from the subject property. I’m here tonight to urge denial of this zoning change, as it is presently a single family dwelling residence. I’m not happy with the staff recommendation that this be changed from single family to 2 flat. That’s not in keeping with good faith for the people who have chosen to invest here previously and have come in based on what was in the ordinance. The original ordinance dated 1980 states that the purpose of this square is B-1 Planned Unit Development Special Use Single Family Dwelling. The subject property at 315 has previously received density reduction money. We are going up and down on zoning here. They also received grant money from the Preservation Department. The property also sits within the Westside National Historic District and has been individually given local historic designation. There are 2 trouble properties next to this one and they are the source of drug activity and occasional rioting, not to mention all night outside parties on the front lawn. I’ve been known to go across the street in my nightgown at 3:00 a.m. and tell them to take it inside. The 1980 ordinance also states that this Special Use is to remain permanently and perpetually effective. I don’t know how we can overturn that, so I ask why are we trying to accommodate another absentee landlord. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Tellez and I’m on 305 W. Downer Place. I own the accounting firm right next to the 315 property and I wish you to deny the zoning. Thank you.

My name is Ray Anderson. I live at 439 W. Downer. I’ve lived there 45 years. I’m a little confused. It doesn’t take somebody 78 years old to be a little confused nowadays, but for the last few years in the city I’ve heard about density reduction, density reduction for the neighborhoods. That’s what we’ve been working on to try to reduce the amount of people living in our area. I work across the street part time. I’m a retired teacher, but I work for Healy Funeral Home and there isn’t anybody that’s outside across from this property during the day and night. I trim bushes and do all the stuff and to see what’s going on across the street it is not pleasant. There is a lot of activity and I think you should look into the police reports to find out what’s been going on there. I also take care of an apartment building at 449 W. Downer and there are 24 apartments in there and every time the owner wants to bring somebody through that wants the possibility of a renter, she calls and says such and such a time I’m going to bring somebody through and I do my darnedest to make sure that hallways are vacuumed. The outside, I always, you can check on it yourself, 449 W. Downer, my home 439, to see if the bushes are trimmed and how nice it looks. This place that we are talking about they did spruce it up a little bit today, trimmed the bushes and some of the weeds, but the painting needs done so what business wants to come there. The place hasn’t looked good so I just can’t imagine why we are going to give this gentleman this zoning so that we can increase problems in the area. There might be a wonderful couple move in, but the stuff next door and in that area it is not good. You don’t even have to take my word for it, but just check the police reports and see what’s going on there. It is not good and also just to make the place look better. I just can’t imagine somebody that wants to bring somebody to rent and pay money and have the place look like that. It just doesn’t make sense. Thank you very much for your time.

Hi. My name is Marc Straits. I own a property on the corner, the edge of the Downer Place development. I know we are here to discuss the zoning change for 315 Downer, but this property, which is the 1883 Hord House, it is an Aurora designated landmark and it is also part of a Planned Development, the Downer Plaza Development and because of these circumstances, I don’t think it can be considered just as a standalone property. When the current owner purchased 315 W. Downer he didn’t just buy an old house. He bought part of a Planned Development that was created by the City of Aurora in 1980, the Downer Plaza Special Use Planned Development. This is an irrevocable agreement approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor. The plan was amended and restated in 2003. In 2006 I bought into this Planned Development when I purchased and completely restored 20 S. Chestnut Street, so I’m legally as well as financially tied to the success of 315 W. Downer just as that owner is tied to my property through the development plan. When I made my investment, the restrictions and responsibilities that came along with the property were made very clear to me by many Aurora city departments. I’ve respected those obligations for 11 years. Apparently the new owner of 315 W. Downer, who bought it as a single family house, remodeled the interior without permits into a 2 family dwelling. This remodeling into a non-conforming use directly diminishes the value of my property as part of the Planned Development. In 2006, 3 of the 8 house, there are actually 8 houses, one of the properties is not included in the development, that’s the brick, I think it is a 4 flat, so there are actually just 8 properties. It is not a huge uncontrollable area. So in 2006, 3 out of the 8 houses in the development had businesses in them. I planned to have the 4th. That would be half of the former residents that would be conforming. In 2006 I thought my investment seemed to have a good future. I renovated my house and made it a very attractive place for a live/work tenant. I have never had a problem in getting a good tenant. When my last tenants left, I had my place rented in 2 weeks to an awesome live/work situation. The house at 305 W. Downer, which is Advanced Accounting, which is next door to 315, is also part of the Downer Plaza plan. It has had a successful accounting business in it for years. I think everybody recognizes it when you come up the Downer hill. Ever since I was in high school that was a property that was taken care of and you could just see that there was a sense of taking care of the property. That house is virtually the same as the house next door, same age, same square footage, virtually the same thing. It’s hard to understand why that property can’t be used as a business successfully. So no attempt has been made by the new owner to restore the original character of the landmark house. It really looks exactly the same. It is uninviting, stripped down. It looks just the same as when it was purchased. The windows are always closed and covered up. There is no street appeal. The first floor was remodeled, I believe, without any permit to do a residence. So to suggest that is a business on the first floor I would think that if you wanted a business on the first floor and you want to go look at the property you’d say it is an apartment. So I believe that the owner created his own problem by doing a remodel without permits. I think there is also, the house directly across the street on the corner of Locust and Downer, which is 302 W. Downer, has currently a single family zoning, so there is a precedence and obviously some strategy to say save these historic properties. I think we all know what happens if you can imagine the Advanced Accounting building if that had been turned into a 2 flat when I was in high school. I think it would probably not be the same beautiful building and at least it’s been saved and is kind of an anchor or a little bit of a gateway to the homeowners that live on W. Downer. If they want to go walk downtown from the houses that they’ve spent a lot of care and money fixing up and they want to go to the library or they want to go to the downtown, they have to walk past these buildings which are already too dense, which have heroin dealers working in the parking lot and lots of police activity. I’m asking you not to grant the zoning change, but rather to stick with what I bought into, which is what the city planners came up with to help lessen the density and maybe get some city government to encourage people to improve and upgrade their buildings into businesses on the first floor.

Good evening. My name is Pam Shelton. I live at 427 W. New York Street in Aurora, Illinois. It is a historical home also. When my husband and I purchased the home, we knew it was historical. We knew we had to live by certain rules and regulations and that was made perfectly clear. So for someone to come in and without permits make a 2 unit building out of a single family, first of all that was illegal. He should have gotten permits, but he probably wouldn’t have been able to get permits because it is a single family. That is how it is zoned. I also heard that it was a financial burden. I’ll be more than happy to write a check for $65,000 and make it a single family home with a business. It is not fair that certain people have to live by rules and certain people ask for forgiveness instead of permission. And that’s how I feel about that.

Vice Chairman Cameron said would the Petitioners want to come forward and answer these questions?

Mr. Karim said I just want to make a few comments. I heard all the comments that were made and I was just sitting there smiling. I have not made a single, and I would invite all of you to go and see my property and Ed was there and the city inspector was there, there was not a single thing I have changed inside the house. There was no remodeling done. Nothing is changed. Not a single thing has changed. I updated, upgraded these things. The floors were all broken. I made new floors, wooden floors. It was wooden floors. I made wooden floors. The walls were falling apart. It was all crumbled materials that he used. I put drywall. That is the change I made, drywall so it looked good, but no change in the elevation, no change in angle. Nothing was changed. It is just upgraded, polished and all those things. So the accusation that I made changes without permits, I didn’t need a permit. I didn’t do any change. I didn’t do anything, added or subtracted nothing. That’s one thing. The second thing is they are talking about population. We are having drug trafficking there because of the empty vacant place in there. It is not helping in the traffic and business will bring more traffic in there, so that’s the other things. The drug dealings that’s happening is in the neighborhood, not in my house. It is happening in my house area because it is an empty place. That’s the reason this was happening. My neighbor, with all due respect, they have an accounting business. I swear I don’t have the picture, but I recall that house was worst, broken house outside, all the paint and everything. They upgraded just last year only with new paint and everything. It was so bad. I am aware of my house that outside the paint is peeling off and I’m working on it. I spent over $100,000 upgrading the whole house from the basement to the upstairs. I’m willing to do that. I know I have to do that. It is my house. I want to take care of it, the outside yes, but somebody telling me that I made some illegal changes, I’ve never done that. Please come and see my property, send the inspector. He was there a few times. That’s all I have to say.

Mr. Dolan said the thing I wanted to add was about the landscaping and so on. That’s not Amin’s job. This is a problem there. It is the shopping center, which Dolan and Murphy, not Dolan and Murphy, which I own and has missed the boat. That’s their responsibility to take care of all the landscaping in the rear and I admit it has gotten out of hand a few times. We’ve done a lot of things with 1 or 2 of the tenants as far upgrading the area, putting in new walks. We did the entire south side of the Dollar Store building, took treetops down. We are trying to stay with it as much as possible. As far as Amin’s property, to talk about it being like it is a dump is really ridiculous. If you just go by it and look, it is quite evident that it is a well-kept home inside and out. I guess that’s about it. The drug problem, we’ve been involved with the police. We’ve had several meetings with them. They are practically going through the McDonald line getting drugs instead of hamburgers in that lot. They are monitoring it. We are going to put cameras on the building. I’m going to light up the area down in the area where the main objector here lives. We’ve done a lot with him as far as improving the area around him. When you work a property, Dolan and Murphy didn’t start in this business yesterday, when you work a property a year and a half and don’t get two showings there is a problem. I’ll leave you with that. Thank you for your time.

Mrs. Cole said I guess this would be a question for staff. There are 8 properties in this Square. Is that correct?

Mr. Sieben said actually there are 9. The 9th one was added, I don’t think I have it in my staff report, but it was added a few years after, so that last house was actually added, but he’s correct, it was not originally in the.

Mrs. Cole said and 4 out of the 9 then are occupied with businesses on the first floor?

Mr. Sieben said I’m only aware of 2, so there are 2 currently; 305 Downer, Mrs. Tellez, and then Marc’s building.

Mrs. Cole said okay. I thought somebody said that there were 4.

Mr. Straits said the one apartment building was not included on the original plan. That got added in somehow?

Mr. Sieben said yes it did, a few years later.

Mr. Straits said who would do that? How could that ever be a business? Why would they add that in?

Mr. Sieben said probably because of the location with the shared parking and everything.

Mr. Straits said so it is impossible for that to be a business. It’s a really small new, probably 1970’s, brick apartment building. I have no idea how that got added in, but the paperwork that I received from the city did not have that included. I have that paper actually from your office. So when I bought my place there were 3 businesses out of 8. My place was going to be the 4th. The only problems that people have when they come there is the density, the people wandering around in the parking lot, trash, all the kinds of things that when the easement was made to suck up the backyards of all those properties to make a parking lot, there was no accommodation made of multiple dwellings for garbage. There is nowhere to hide garbage cans. People sit out on the back sidewalks. The indented purpose is obviously not the direction that it is going in. Part of the reason is actually that there has been no help from the city. There has been very little help from Dolan and Murphy. I’ve had the place for 11 years and it’s like pulling teeth. So sorry Dan, but when you say that you redid the side of the Dollar Store, it’s weeds, broken concrete and 1 tree. The documents clearly state that the parking lot and the berms are supposed to be landscaped and maintained in the same fashion that the McDonalds property has been. I’ve been saying that for years. I’ve talked to every city department. I get no response. I’ll call Dolan and Murphy. They’ll clean it up, they’ll get rid of a few weeds, but those are the reasons that people maybe don’t want to rent or live there. Nice people aren’t going to live there. I fixed my place up really nice. I’ve been very lucky because it is a business and it works out well for my tenants. It has worked out well, but I don’t think we should pretend that it is a nice place for families to live. It is not a nice place. There is drug activity going on, all the kinds of things that I think planning people know are why you downzone, not increase the density. We’re not asking for a new plan. This is a plan that I bought into. It is existing and I think we just need to develop it. It was halfway there when I invested in my property and now it is sort of being cherry picked and I haven’t heard one good reason why, because somebody spent $100,000. How do you spend $100,000 without getting permits? That’s a lot of drywall. I was in that building when it was for sale. Some friends of mine that have a house down on Downer that they’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating were considering buying it. It was $65,000. It was not a 2 apartment building. Fred Baker had his business downstairs, but it is still basically the same house. There is an onyx fireplace. There are great big wooden arches with doors that close. It is what it is. So I don’t want people to misrepresent. The Advanced Accounting building and this building are the same building, so how can you say that you can’t get renters. When I drive by, it is an ugly building. It is all stripped down. The windows are always completely7 closed so that you can’t see inside. It looks spooky. So I don’t know how many inquiries there are of people that come to visit it, but I don’t see why that should diminish my investment because somebody hasn’t improved their property or because they went ahead and did remodeling because as he said $100,000 worth of work is no sprucing up and that’s all on the interior too. Thank you.

Vice Chairman Cameron said I have a question. You mentioned 4 places. I assume that was when Baker was still open, is that right?

Mr. Straits said correct.

Vice Chairman Cameron said so it was 4 counting that one?

Mr. Straits said correct and it was less dense at that point.

Mr. Sieben said just some comments before the recommendation. Just to respond to a couple of questions, Mrs. Flaherty said that there had been density reduction money for this property. I’m not aware of that. We will double check that prior to P&D next week. The one thing they did get was in 1994 they had a $10,000 Preservation loan for improvements to the exterior such as siding and things like that, painting. That was in 1994, so we’ll double check that. I also did double check with Property Standards and Legal and apparently nothing in this block has risen to kick in the criminal housing ordinance, which could result in pulling of licenses. That’s something that’s not done by Zoning. That’s done by the Law Department usually working with Property Standards. Apparently nothing has risen to that level, not that there’s not a lot of issues there. The other thing I would like to say is that I totally hear what all the neighbors are saying. In fact, myself and John Curley worked with Mrs. Tellez in 2004 when she bought the place and we worked with her to do kind of the live/work thing with the accounting business and then we did work with Marc. Marc has done a fantastic job with that property. We are very familiar with the history there. In fact, Mr. Karim and Mr. Dolan, we met with them in 2014 and the same request was made in 2014. We really, staff didn’t really want to support the change because we felt that we’d like see them give an effort to try to market it for the first floor business. They would occasionally ask about. We said keep working. We did ask Seize the Future/Invest Aurora to try to work with them also to try to get the word out and market it. I’m not privy to the details of that, but based on their testimony they’ve not been able to market it. Now there could be various reasons for that. So that’s kind of the background. This was a very tough call for staff, but staff does believe that the lack of a changeover to business use over the last 37 years does indicate for this particular property, because it is a very large building, that the highest and best use here may be for an additional large quality residential unit. Now I must say that I did visit the site with Alderman Donnell last week and met Mr. Karim. We were a little taken aback by the condition of the exterior of the property. We did make those comments to the property owner that it was not very inviting on the exterior. Now the interior is very nice and we would hope that if this were to get approved, that this would be a high quality unit. That’s basically the background unless you have any other questions. For those reasons, staff would recommend approval of the Rezoning for 315 Downer from B-1(S) to R-4 for this particular property.

Vice Chairman Cameron said Ed I have a question. The first floor unit, is it basically in the same shape it was when the Bakers were there? Are there additional things that are going to be needed to be done to add a unit?

Mr. Sieben said I was never in it with the Bakers. Myself and John Curley did go in this when work was being done back in 2013 or 2014. There were some things done that probably, I don’t remember if he did pull a remodel permit or not. Like he said, he was upgrading some of the finishes and things like that. That was left up to the Building Department. I don’t know how that was ultimately resolved. It does have fairly good finishes, the kitchen, the floors, and the onyx fireplace. It does have good finishes. It is a fairly large unit, about 1,500 square feet.

Vice Chairman Cameron said and would any of the finishes and those items, would that typically have required permitting?

Mr. Sieben said if there were changes of walls and things like that. If you are upgrading drywall and things like that usually you should get a permit for that, usually there is going to be maybe some electrical, but I would leave that to the Building Department. I can’t say for sure whether it needed a permit or not.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I have a quick question. Is it currently still, is it single family or has it already been converted into a 2 family?

Mr. Sieben said right now there is an apartment on the upper floor. The bottom floor has been vacant since he bought the property and it has been marketed for business use.

Mr. Pilmer said Ed, can you just clarify. We heard some testimony about, I think, when this was originally passed in 1982 it was supposed to be permanent and perpetual. I think the request is an amendment to that.

Mr. Sieben said well there is the zoning in place, so there are multiple properties there part of the Special Use Planned Development. There’s, I believe, also covenants in place for shared parking. Anyone can ask for a zoning change and that’s up to the City Council if they would approve that.

Mrs. Anderson said I have a question for the Petitioner. I know it hasn’t passed yet though. Do you have any people that are interested in renting that bottom level?

Mr. Karim said no we have not for residential because the requirement was for business, so we have been trying for business only. I believe I still have pictures, the before and after, so I can show you all the pictures that I have. There was not even a single switch that we have changed. The old doors are old doors. I spent a $1,000 even to get those moving parts working so that that door can be closed. I tried to keep it exactly what it is. I have not changed a single thing in there.

Mrs. Anderson said but this is all on the interior, correct?

Mr. Karim said yes.

Mrs. Anderson said so nothing on the exterior?

Mr. Karim said no, nothing.

Mrs. Anderson said which is the issue actually.

Mr. Karim said yes. I’ve spent months and months.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I guess I have one more question and that is in all the marketing efforts, were there interior pictures that were being used to market this property or was it all exterior? If the exterior is not appealing to a potential renter or leaser, how do we go from obtaining that client?

Mr. Karim said that’s a good question. We touched up the exterior as well, so I had roofing and siding and paint. I have painted outside as well, but now it has been like 4 years. Now the paint is peeling off. I didn’t do a massive change like my neighbor. They peeled off, scraped off all the old paint. I need to do that. I need to do the exact same thing as what they did. I have seen what they have done last year, so I need to do the same thing. We painted over it and I see now painting is peeling off. I think it is to the best interest. They are concerned about their value and they can see in the last 4 or 5 years their value is going down and gone down. It is because we have empty houses in Aurora. We have downtown empty spaces. If we make the neighborhood safe, make it a good house, I think that’s all we need to do is improvement and attract good tenants, not keep it empty and have drug dealers coming in and doing drug dealings.

Vice Chairman Cameron said when you are referring to roofing, are you talking repair or replacement?

Mr. Karim said repairs. As I said, I looked at all the necessary things I needed to for permit and it was for repairs it was not required.

Vice Chairman Cameron said I would suggest that you do share with Ed those pictures.

Ms. Shelton said first off I wonder if the due diligence for the demographics were done in the charging of how much rent. His rent sounds a little high. I used to own 3 businesses in Peoria, Illinois and if you have to pay too much for rent, and that’s not in a prime location as far as it is not on Galena, did he did his due diligence? Is he asking too much? It sounds like he is asking too much to me just according to my knowing what rental units for commercial use go for. I would want to know that.

Mr. Karim said we have discussed with Dolan and Murphy and my previous real estate agents. We did that. We even discussed with the Planning and Zoning to do what the rate should be. It is kind of a dollar per square feet, but that’s not even a concern. I’m not concerned about the pennies and dollars in there. Get me a tenant and I will be happy move them in there. The cost is not an issue. I did not have anyone even ask for rent, no negotiation, nothing. There was nothing to discuss. I don’t have any answer. We put it like a dollar per square foot, but that’s an open thing. We didn’t have a single offer.

Ms. Shelton said and I would say that if you asked too much for your rent you are not going to get calls. If I were opening another business, I certainly wouldn’t go rent something that was higher per square foot than other places.

Vice Chairman Cameron said my guess would be I think Dolan is an old firm in town and the amount of business they do, I would hope they at least have a pretty good evaluation of where the market is and what it is. I don’t know that specific area.

Mr. Anderson said this will be quick. When you finished the other hearings on the other proposals and you asked those questions, everybody answered the questions on your panel, I agreed with them. That’s going back to the single family. I agreed with the questions that were being asked. Now if you people approve this change and you ask those questions, I’m not going to have a very good positive answer to those questions if you approve more people to move into that apartment. Thank you.

The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Sieben said I think I was pretty much done with the background. I think the other issue is this is fairly close to downtown. It is a transitional area to go into the single family to the west. I think that was the other thing the staff looked at, and again, to try to get a quality apartment in what has been a vacant 1,500 square foot first floor, but again, totally appreciate the public hearing comments. Again, I think I did state the recommendation that staff does recommend approval of this Rezoning.

Mrs. Cole said Mr. Pilmer kind of asked the question and I was going to ask the same question, but I heard 2 people testify that something was passed in 1980. The words irrevocable were in that ordinance, so nothing is really irrevocable?

Mr. Sieben said the city doesn’t enforce covenants. That’s a private matter, a private party matter, just like an HOA, restrictive covenants.

Mrs. Anderson said we need clarification on whether it was a city ordinance or not.

Mr. Sieben said I’m not sure exactly what they are referring to. There are full covenants on this property that deal with the shared parking and maintenance and things like that, so I’m not exactly sure what section she is referring to.

Vice Chairman Cameron said but if the words in the ordinance, could you explain, are those irrevocable or is it like things that may or may not be, depending on what future bodies choose to do?

Mr. Sieben said to be honest with you I can’t comment on what she is referring to. The City Council can rezone property. I know there are covenants on the property. I don’t know specifically how that relates to the overall zoning of the property.

Mr. Pilmer said well then just to clarify, this is an amendment to what was originally passed back in 1980 and.

Mr. Sieben said this is an amendment to 1 property.

Vice Chairman Cameron said would you investigate that prior to it going to P&D?

Mr. Sieben said sure.

Mrs. Head said I think it should be tabled until we get that information.

Mrs. Anderson said absolutely.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I’ll second that.

Mrs. Cole said I just have a comment. It sounds like if there were covenants on this property that nobody is enforcing the care of the property. Like I said, the area, if you just drive through McDonalds it really looks nice, but when you get out of your car or when you walk down there it doesn’t look so nice, so someone is falling down in what should be taken care of.

Mr. Pilmer said but I think generally if there are covenants on properties, whether it be these 9 properties or whether it be some type of a Homeowners Association, generally that’s I don’t believe the role of the Planning Commission. I think the role of Planning Commission is to look at it from a zoning perspective. I agree it needs to be clarified, but I also think that clarification is not something that the Planning

Commission would do. I think that belongs in the hands of the actual members of that Association.

Mrs. Cole said that’s right, but it would be the city, somebody in the city if they are not mowing their grass. I know if you don’t mow your grass the city mows it for you eventually. Maybe somebody could look at the care that’s being given to this area.

Vice Chairman Cameron said a yes vote is to table to the next meeting.

Motion To Continue To 7/19/2017 Was Made By: Mrs. Head

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Owusu-Safo

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo

Nays: Mrs. Cole, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I think it gives everybody an opportunity to visit the site as well and also make sure that you don’t have additional questions.

Mr. Sieben said and we would be glad to follow up on some of the questions that were brought up today.

Mr. Pilmer said I think they are looking mainly is it part of the ordinance and clarification.

Vice Chairman Cameron said if it is an ordinance and what do the terms irrevocable and that type of thing mean.

Mr. Sieben said we’d be glad to run it by Legal and just double check that.

17-00546 A Resolution Approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lot 5 for Unit 2 and Unit 3 of Aurora Corporate Center Subdivision, Located at 2619 Beverly Drive, Being the Southeast Corner of Beverly Drive and Ginger Woods Parkway for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services (3300) use

Mr. Broadwell said the Petitioner, Fox Valley Farms, is requesting approval of a Final Plan Revision for Lot 5 of the Aurora Corporate Center Subdivision, which is located at 2619 Beverly Drive, to construct a 24,897 square foot addition to its existing facility for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services Use. A little bit of background, the subject property is currently utilized by the Petitioner for the storage and distribution of its products to customers. Unit 3 is 2.43 acres and maintains an existing 24,955 square foot building. Unit 2 is presently vacant and is.84 acres. The subject property is 3.27 total acres. Details of the request include the construction of a 24,897 square foot building on Unit 2, which will be an addition to the existing building on Unit 3 to allow for expanded business operations. The proposed characteristics of the addition will match the existing building. It will be one story, 28 feet, 8 inches tall and painted white pre-cast concrete. Unit 2 will also maintain a new 28 car parking lot. Entrance to this parking lot will be from Beverly Drive with an exit on Ginger Woods Parkway and will provide additional access to the existing parking lot on Unit 3.

I’m Steve Hanson, Steven W. Hansen Architect. I’ve been in the Aurora area for 35 years. I am with Dan Walker and Davie Schuett from Fox Valley Farms, who are here with me right now. I’ll have them explain their operation in a little bit. Tom Burgess and I designed and built their original building, which is on Lot 3. Tom originally built all the buildings on Lot 5, which was 4 lots for 4 buildings and with their growth, they bought Lot 2 from him and they came in maybe a year and a half ago or so and combined the lots and got rid of an easement for an access driveway that was along the north side of their building in anticipation of building an addition on the lot to the north, which is Lot 2. That’s when they brought me on and they also brought on Brandon Jafari from CE Illinois, who is the Civil Engineer on the project, to look into different ways to accommodate the growth for their facility, which they can talk about briefly in just a second as well. Basically the facility that we are building is the same thing that the current building is. It is painted pre-cast with some decorative reveals that wrap around the building. The building itself is consistent with all of Aurora Corporate Center design standards in size and scale, which is both buildings on the west of Beverly and the current building that we just built to the south, which is Lot 4. The building that we are doing now is a 24 foot high basically additional warehouse facility space. There are no additional offices or anything anticipated in there at this time. They are running out of space for providing goods to their clients and so that’s how we came up with this design for them. We have included on the little peninsula that sticks down to the south on the east side of the site basically a receiving dock, so now they can bring stuff into their building separate from the current dock that they have on their existing building and then to kind have an in/out pattern for their goods, which will make them more efficient as well as the additional space. They don’t have planned for now, but at one point in the near future they plan on expanding their freezers and we have about 9,000 square feet of freezer space that we’ll put into that 24,000 square feet. If there are any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them now, or I can let them tell you a little about their company.

My name is Dan Walker. I’m the President and CEO of Fox Valley Farms. We are an ice cream distribution company. It is kind of a fun business and this is a busy time of the year for us, the 4th of July weekend. We bring products from two dairies primarily. We bring it in. It is all finished good, finished boxed goods, mostly soft serve ice cream and we get it to our customers, which are normally ma and pa custards stands or ice cream stands. Business has been good. We continue to grow and grow and grow. We moved here in 2013. When we moved here we rode along with the TIF at the time, so the TIF brought us here. We were looking at Batavia, but the TIF ended up incentivizing us to come here. It’s been great, but maybe we should have built it a little bigger. It is a good problem to have. This is kind of a new opportunity for us to keep expanding our product line. We have a couple of vendors right now that would like us to carry their products, but we’ve told them we can’t do it. We’d love to bring in more delicious sugary snacks, but we can’t do it at this time. Most of our clients would be ice cream shops, kind of like Dairy Queens, Portillo’s and White Castle would be some of the bigger chains. But if you’ve ever been to Milwaukee to any custard stands up there or even in town here a lot of Paletas shops, the Hispanic ice cream shops that are opening up. That’s been part of our growth too. It is a good business, a fun business, but we need some help. We need some more room.

Mr. Schuett said I guess the one thing I would like to add too is I think since we’ve been here, I think we’ve doubled our sales and also doubled our inventory so that’s the main problem that we are having, so we are storing inventory in frozen trailers and in dry storage trailers. I think we’ve got about 6 or 7 of them in our yard, so as soon as we get that building built, hopefully we get it sooner than later, we can start filling it up right away. We’ve also added, I think, 2 full time jobs with full benefits since we’ve been here in 2013, so we’ve added 8 jobs and I think we are going to add another 2 full time positions this year. That seems to be kind of our magic number, so I think going forward it is 2 jobs every year if not hopefully more.

Vice Chairman Cameron said I would share with you that I was in the building business for 32 years and people would come and have that same question of not building big enough and I said you basically make your decision with the amount of money you have at the time and you do what’s possible. The more successful you are the more you blame yourself for not building bigger to start with. It is a good situation.

Mr. Walker said we have regrets, yes.

Mrs. Cole said I have a question and a comment. First off, I love ice cream. You said you are going to be adding like 9,000 square feet of freezer space?

Mr. Walker said yes.

Mrs. Cole said that means that you are going to use a lot of electricity and you have a huge flat roof. Have you ever thought about installing solar on your roof and producing your own energy?

Mr. Walker said we actually have. We have thought about it, but haven’t explored too much of the opportunities and incentives that are out there. I know the electric bill is about $5,000 to $6,000 a month, so it might be nice to be able to put it up there with all the compressor units that we’ve got up there to put solar panels up there.

Mrs. Cole said you might want to look into that. There was just an act that was passed. It went into effect June 1st of this year, so there is some money available for solar.

Mr. Walker said okay. We’ll look into that.

Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend approval of the Resolution approving a revision to the Final Plan on Lot 5 for Unit 2 and Unit 3 of Aurora Corporate Center Subdivision located at 2619 Beverly Drive, being the southeast corner of Beverly Drive and Ginger Woods Parkway for a Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services Use.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mr. Pilmer

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Cole

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: None

Mr. Broadwell said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 13, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mr. Pilmer, seconded by Mrs. Cole, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/13/2017. The motion carried.

Pending

Committee Reports

A) Amendments

B) Grant and Award Research

C) Comprehensive Plan

Announcements

Adjournment:

A motion was made by Mr. Pilmer, seconded by Mrs. Cole, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Vice Chairman Cameron adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.

https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07052017-1077