New City of Aurora Planning Commission met July 19.
Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:
Call to Order:
Chairman Truax called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
The following Commission members were present: Chairman Truax, Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer and Mr. Reynolds. Mrs. Cole called in and excused herself from the meeting. Mr. Garcia and Mrs. Head were absent.
Others Present:
The following staff members were present: Mr. Sieben, Mrs. Vacek, Mr. Minnella, Mr. Broadwell and Mrs. Jackson.
Others Present: Josh Turner (37 Countryside Estates, Sandwich, IL), Shirley Flaherty (314 W. Downer Place), Marc Straits (300 N. State Street, Chicago, IL), Scott Pettit (373 West Park Avenue), Aminul Karim (315 W. Downer Place), David Rawlings (DL Rawlings Inc.) and Kenneth Sack (Watermark Engineering).
Approval of Minutes:
17-00555 Approval of the Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 2017.
A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Cameron, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.
Agenda:
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 this was a continuation from 2 weeks ago. So what I will attempt to do is address the questions of a couple of the neighbors, Mr. Straits and Mrs. Flaherty. I have handed out to you and the Petitioner some proposed conditions based on testimony and based on a visit to the site prior to the last meeting so we will talk about that too. In your packets, you received a letter signed by Mr. Straits and Elizabeth Tellez at 305 W. Downer. Mr. Straits was at 20 S. Chestnut. I’ll attempt to address some of their concerns that were in here. First off, their statements are inaccurate and I can go over that. Mr. Straits refers to the 1980 ordinance, which was in your packet. He indicates that the Section 3 of the original ordinance states that the Special Use “shall remain permanently and perpetually effective”. If you refer to Section 3, what that statement is referring to are the conditions that were placed on the Rezoning and Special Use, so it states Section 3 that the granting and continuance of said Special Use is made specifically contingent upon and subject to the following conditions and limitations, which shall remain permanently and perpetually effective. Number 1 was a list of certain B-2 uses that were to be excluded from these buildings. That included an auto accessory store, banks, drug store, laundromats, etc. There are about 10 uses that were prohibited from being allowed as a B-1 use. The second condition was that none of the buildings were to be razed, that once they converted in the future to business they couldn’t tear down the existing former residence. They has to be converted. In other words, you couldn’t tear it down and build a retail center there. The third item was that prior to issuance of building permit a specific site plan be done for the exterior treatment, parking, landscape plans, etc. What happened subsequent to the 1980 zoning, I believe it was 1982, the Final Plan was done to do the whole shared parking and egress and everything like that. Number 4 was that prior to review of any specific site plans, again, a preliminary concept plan be done. Then 5, it asks for a review after 1 year to make sure the Special Use was, I guess, working. I don’t know for sure if that was done, but that was Number 5. The perpetuity was really for the conditions. The remainder of the 1980 Special Use Ordinance was really the same language that’s in any of our other rezonings or ordinances, so I just wanted to address that. He also submitted the Amended and Restated Easement Agreement from 2003, which was recorded in 2004. That’s when the McDonald’s went in just to the north there, so that area was redone. Basically that easement agreement is a private agreement between 380 W. Galena, LLC, who is the developer and owner of the commercial areas with all the property owners. This is to run with the property and with consecutive owners, but really the purpose of it was the use for parking. It is for parking purposes, ingress and egress, access points and all parking spaces, so it really doesn’t deal with the use or doesn’t prevent a request for going through a city process for rezoning. So those issues were not applicable. Just one little side issue, I had stated that 331 W. Downer was added to the development in 1981. Tracey has a copy of the ordinance, which is ordinance O81-5005, which was approved August 4, 1981. That last property was in. That’s really a non-issue, but I just wanted to clarify that. The other comment was that this property has received reconversion money. We did an exhaustive search with the Neighborhood Redevelopment office who does the reconversions and with the Finance Department and we could not find that that was the case. Again, as I testified last time, there was a preservation loan for up to $10,000 that was granted to Mr. Baker in, I believe, in 1994 to make improvements to the property. I think it was siding and painting and things like that. That’s really all I have. The item is based on testimony from the last meeting from the neighbors and from being on site. Staff would like to recommend 3 conditions, or actually 1 condition with 3 parts to it for this if this were to be recommended for approval. If I could just state the recommendation:
1. That the apartment license for the first floor unit shall not be issued until:
a) The building has been scraped and painted to the satisfaction of the Property Standards Division;
b) A landscape contract has been entered into by the owner of 315 W. Downer with a landscape maintenance service for maintaining the grass and landscaping for the 315 lot;
c) The common areas of the shared parking lot under the responsibility of 380 W. Galena, LLC be maintained and landscaped per the approved plan and easement agreement.
So all those items would have to take place if the zoning is granted prior to a license being issued for the proposed first floor unit.
Chairman Truax said a quick question of the third of the conditions. The responsibility of 380 W. Galena, LLC, is that ongoing?
Mr. Sieben said that is part of that easement agreement, so they are responsible for that. Based on testimony and eyewitness and the neighbors the north half adjacent to the Dollar Tree and the McDonald’ is being maintained and landscaped. They appear to be neglecting the south half and this would require that that be done, that it be treated equally and all areas being maintained equally and landscaped. I believe there is some landscaping that is missing. Also when we were out there, I was out there twice, including the day of the last Commission meeting, and there were still quite a few weeds in that south end of the parking lot.
Chairman Truax said so that’s Property Standards that would be involved with that?
Mr. Sieben said that would be Property Standards, correct. Mr. Dolan, who was here last week, indicated that he is responsible and would do that, but we would want to make sure that that would be done prior to any license.
Mr. Cameron said what’s the method of enforcement on that?
Mr. Sieben said it would be Property Standards. We are in touch with Kelvin Beene, Manager of Property Standards, on that.
Mr. Cameron said it just hasn’t’ been reported or otherwise?
Mr. Sieben said well I think the neighbors have reported it. I can’t speak for Property Standards, but believe me as part of this the eyes are on it and it will be done.
Chairman Truax said the public hearing last time was closed, so this really is not a public hearing. I know there are people here who are very interested in this. We do not want to rehash what is in our minutes and what was heard two weeks ago and we all have lots of papers that we’ve been reading and visiting the site. I would grant a few minutes if there are just some comments that people would care to make now without going back and redoing what was done 2 weeks ago.
The witness was sworn in.
Thank you for allowing me a chance to speak. I am a friend and former tenant of Marc Straits. I lived at 20 S. Chestnut for 4 years. My name is Josh Turner and I currently live in Sandwich, Illinois. So I lived at 20 S. Chestnut for 4 years. I requested to share my experience living there and running a business there. I ran my business there for 4 years successfully. We used both the front and the back entrance for the business. The back entrance was quite convenient because there was parking right there and people could come right into the back office that I had set up. Because we also lived there, it was a work/living arrangement, we lived in the upstairs part, and I experienced the residence and the business at all times of day and night. I was also very keen to see the area maintained and taken care of. I personally made countless complaints, well maybe not countless, but I can’t count them at the moment, but I made several complaints to Property Standards and to Mr. Dolan. We had a meeting in my business with several community police officers, Mr. Sieben, the Alderman at the time and we came up with some ideas, none of which were followed up on. Mr. Dolan did not take of the parking lot. I hounded and hounded and hounded him and one time we got a seal, we got the parking lot sealed. As far as I understand, and I still come into Aurora to do things, this parking lot got sealed this last week and the only part that got sealed was McDonald’s. So as far as promises to take care of that area, in my experience there, it never happened the way that it ought to have happened. Also I watched the property that got bought be renovated. I actually made a complaint. They did scrape and paint it. They did not set up any kind of abatement for the lead that was being scraped off and blown away. They had people up there scraping and everything. I did make a complaint. I think at that point it stopped. But I think primarily what I want to say is that Mr. Straits is a visionary person. The idea that he has for that area will work, but it requires will power. It requires the ability for the community to work together on the things that it’s agreed to do. Of course, some people are key parts of that that aren’t here. But I would say that if we are requiring as a sub-point of the condition to change the zoning on this to be that the current agreement, the current private agreement being enforced, I would say that history shows us that that is unlikely to happen. I’m glad to hear it because I think it should happen. I think that, in fact, the reason that I moved to Sandwich is because I quit to go to school and I shall have my professional license this next year and I’ve already talked to Marc about possibly moving back in and bringing my business there. It does require some sort of uptick. We can’t have sort of McDonald’s be, because it is a powerhouse, kind of the center of what’s happening there to the neglect of other people. As far as the Dollar General, I saw no sort of upkeep, none, so when we are talking about the south part we are talking about anything but McDonalds’. The Dollar Store was never up-kept. In fact, quite the opposite. I often ended up picking up garbage that blew over from McDonald’s and the Dollar Store. I had to shovel out my parking lot so that, or my area of the common parking area, so that my clients could come and park because we never got plowed. I mean there are several things I can say, but if the agreement worked, it would work. But you can’t say that the current situation is not working and so we should change things when you haven’t given the current situation the best opportunity to work that you could. Thanks.
Chairman Truax said that you for your comments. We do appreciate the efforts that the neighbors have made to try to make this area a beautiful area.
I’m Shirley Flaherty, 314 W. Downer, across the street from this property. For 20 some years we’ve had a density reduction program and we’ve been putting between $23,000 and $25,000 out per unit to downsize. Why are we upsizing? That’s all.
Chairman Truax said thank you for your comments. I think Ed mentioned that.
I’m Marc Straits, 20 S. Chestnut. I just wanted to bring something up that was stated the last time, which is that maybe the retail parking lot and the business owning never was a good idea and that’s why it’s not working and I need to take exception to that because Elizabeth Tellez and myself both have successful businesses in our properties that have been there for a long time. Fred Baker had a business for over 20 years and John O’Neil had a business in his house for quite a long time, so that’s 4 out of the 8 houses. The reason that we are having a problem now is because of the decline of the area. I don’t think anybody’s done a study on why the area isn’t working as a business. I would like to hear if there was a study, but I think it is just an opinion and an opinion that’s not based on, I think, common knowledge of how people handle these kind of situations in other cities. So that’s the point I wanted to make that Ms. Tellez and myself, as well as, I think, Mr. Baker and John O’Neil were very proud of the efforts we made to have successful businesses.
Chairman Truax said thank you for your comments.
My name is Aminul Karim. I own the property at 315 W. Downer Place. So as I’m sitting here and hearing and last week also I heard the same thing complaining about not having permits and all the changes that I have made. Nothing has been made, but I did want to reiterate that. What I’m hearing is they are complaining about maintenance only on the McDonalds’ side, nothing on the south side and why this zoning has not really been successful. Why are they trying to punish 315 W. Downer? Why is everybody pointing at 315 W. Downer? This is a property where we have been trying, we have done everything we could do to rent it out to businesses and it never succeeded. We can see all over the town in Aurora a lot of empty spaces, so how can it extend to a residential area? My point is why are they trying to punish me like you suffer because this place is not successful? That’s my point to all of you.
Chairman Truax said thank you for your comments. Ed do you have any further recommendations. You kind of already gave it to us.
Mr. Sieben said the staff would recommend approval of the rezoning with the 3 additional conditions. I don’t know if Mr. Karim maybe wants to address that. Would you be agreeable to those conditions?
Mr. Karim said yes. So the 3 points in here as you can see is the building has been scraped and painted to the satisfaction of the Property Standard Division. I’m already working on. I have talked to someone who is willing to come, but he is busy and as time permits I will go ahead and work on that. The landscape contract has already been given to someone last week. I just visited the property. He did clean up the lawn, but it is not done properly. I tried to get in touch with him, but he will do it. I don’t have a signed contract with him.
Mr. Sieben said I’m sorry, you do or you don’t.
Mr. Karim said no I don’t. I don’t have a signed contract, but I have a verbal contract.
Mr. Sieben said I think we would like a signed contract.
Mr. Karim said of course. I told him that I needed a signed contract. The last item actually belongs to Dolan Real Estate. There is nothing that I can do about it. Thank you.
Motion For Denial Was Made By: Mrs. Owusu-Safo
Motion Seconded By: Mr. Cameron
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds
Nays: None
Chairman Truax said so the motion carries. It is a denial of the rezoning.
Mr. Sieben said I think you still do Findings for denial and again, this is a recommendation so this will move on.
Chairman Truax said this is a recommendation. It does forward to City Council.
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. Owusu-Safo said I think currently it is not applicable because the proposed use does not match the existing use and, therefore, may not bring positive improvements to the area.
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. Cameron said this property was in effect put together as a Special Use for that area and it would seem to me as though it is not in the best interests of the community to in effect dismantle it place by place and if there is a desire to return it to basically a non-retail first floor environment then that should be as a policy and take part in a general rezoning or action for the whole neighborhood.
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. Pilmer said I think you could argue that the proposal is not consistent with the desirable trend of development in the general area. It is definitely a mixed area. You have some multi-family adjacent within this group of houses. You have multi-family across the street. However, in dealing with the general character of the actual Association I don’t believe it is consistent with the desirable trend.
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 I don’t think this is really applicable to the situation.
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 the proposal, as stated, most likely these are already in place and there should be no change.
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?
Mr. Cameron said this proposal does not affect that.
7a. Is the rezoning a consistent extension of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area?
Chairman Truax said I think that is very similar to answer Number 2, which Mr. Cameron has already answered.
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?
Chairman Truax said I believe this is somewhat substantially the same as question Number 3 above, which Mr. Pilmer answered.
7c. Will the rezoning permit uses which are more suitable than uses permitted under the existing zoning classification?
Mrs. Owusu-Safo said I believe it is not more suitable.
Mr. Sieben said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
A motion was made by Mrs. Owusu-Safo, seconded by Mr. Cameron, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/27/2017. The motion carried.
17-00549 A Resolution Approving a Final Plan for the Property Located on the South Side of New York Street and West of Welsh Drive, for a Car Dealership Entirely Used (2811) Use
Mr. Broadwell said the Petitioner, Fox Valley Property Services, LLC, is requesting approval of a Final Plan for the property located on the south side of New York and west of Welsh. It includes construction of a new approximately 4,300 square foot building and associated parking. So a little bit of background, the subject property is currently vacant with a B-2 Special Use Business District General Retail zoning and it is part of the Fox Valley Square Special Use Planned Development. You’ll remember that there was a Preliminary Plat and Plan that came before you in early April and was approved in late April, and this included the subdivision of the property into 4 lots. Lots 1-3 will be developed as commercial uses and Lot 4 is vacant. There is additional information in the Property Information Sheet. The Petitioner is not subdividing the property at this time, but is requesting approval of a Final Plan for the future Lot 1 of the Fox Valley Square Subdivision. The Plan is consistent with Lot 1 of their approved Preliminary Plan and so it is not necessary to subdivide the property until the second lot is being developed. Details of the request include the construction of a new 4,300 square foot building with 59 parking spaces, a 19 foot 9 inch tall building and an 18 by 17 foot wide monument sign that is also proposed and will be a shared sign utilized by the entire future subdivision with no more than 1/3 of the sign to be utilized by any one tenant or lot.
Mr. Pilmer said I have a question, although I think I know the answer, but I just want to make certain, so this will all be one lot. The Petitioner, as a used car dealer, he is required to keep all of his vehicles on a paved surface and not his entire lot?
Mr. Sieben said yes. Just to clarify, they all have to be on a designed space, so yes, correct.
Chairman Truax said is there a concern about the overuse of a use in this area?
Mr. Sieben said maybe I can give a background. I know I can give a 17 year background since I’ve been here. There have been a couple of areas where the City Council has been amenable to, I guess, new or used car facilities. One of them is E. New York in this corridor in Ward 7 primarily. The other one is on Hill Avenue, and that’s with taking historically with the Aldermen of those areas and that’s where the city has historically supported those developments.
Mr. Sieben said do you guys have anything to add?
Mr. Rawlings said I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend conditional approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plan for the property located at the south side of New York Street and west of Welsh for a Car Dealership Entirely Used with the following conditions:
1. That no more than 1/3 of the overall development sign shall be utilized by any one tenant or lot.
2. That the property be subdivided consistent with the Preliminary Plan and Plat prior to the approval of any subsequent Final Plan on the subject property.
Motion Of Conditional Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Anderson
Motion Seconded By: Mr. Chambers
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, 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 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Chambers, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/27/2017. The motion carried.
17-00572 A Resolution Approving a Revision to the Final Plan for Lot 6 of Butterfield Village Center Subdivision, Phase II located at 1555 Butterfield Road (Butterfield Village Center, LLC - 17-00572 / BA36/3-15.142-Fpn/R/VAC/DED - AM - Ward 1)
Mr. Minnella said the Petitioner is not present tonight. Staff has to make the Commission aware that it was determined that a stormwater variance is required for the site, which requires a public hearing. Therefore, staff made the Petitioner aware that public notices need to be sent to the residents. Staff will also facilitate those public notices. This will go, therefore, to the public hearing tentatively scheduled for August 16. We need to continue this item to the Planning Commission on August 16.
Chairman Truax said so we would ask for a motion to continue this to the August 16th meeting and have it be a public hearing at that point.
Mr. Sieben said just one more thing to clarify. Specifically it is a variance to the Stormwater Ordinance and it is the wetland buffer. What they are looking at doing and in your plan is they are expanding the parking lot and there will be a retaining wall right adjacent to the wetlands. Just real briefly, the Army Corp originally approved the plan, but it has been determined by the city’s wetland consultants that there needs to be a variance granted through the city Stormwater Ordinance, which is the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance, to allow for that. We just want to make sure all the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed. The Petitioner is aware of it and is fully aware of the new dates, so we will be back in a month.
Motion Of To Continue To The August 16, 2017 Meeting Was Made By: Mr. Bergeron
Motion Seconded By: Mr. Chambers
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, 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 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
A motion was made by Mr. Bergeron, seconded by Mr. Chambers, that this agenda item be Held in Planning Commission. The motion carried.
17-00573 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat for McDonald's Subdivision located at 711 E. New York Street being the south east corner of E New York Street and N Union Street.
See Attachment for Items 17-00573 and 17-00574.
A motion was made by Mrs. Duncan, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/27/2017. The motion carried.
17-00574 A Resolution Approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lot 1 of McDonald's Subdivision for the Property Located at 711 E New York Street Being at the South East Corner of E New York Street and N Union Street for a Drive-Through Facility Use.
See Attachment for Items 17-00573 and 17-00574.
A motion was made by Mrs. Duncan, seconded by Mrs. Owusu-Safo, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 7/27/2017. The motion carried.
Attachment for Items 17-00573 and 17-00574
17-00573 A Resolution approving the Final Plat for McDonalds Subdivision located at 711 E. New York Street being the southeast corner of E. New York Street and N. Union Street (McDonald’s – 17-00573 / AU22/4-17.090-Fsd/Fpn/R – AM – Ward 2)
17-00574 A Resolution approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lot 1 of McDonald’s Subdivision for the property located at 711 E. New York Street being at the southeast corner of E. New York Street and N. Union Street for a Drive-Through Facility Use (McDonald’s – 17-00574 / AU22/4-17.090-Fsd/Fpn/R – AM – Ward 2)
Mr. Minnella said before you, the Petitioner, McDonald’s, here represented by their engineer tonight, is requesting the approval of a Final Plat for the McDonald’s Subdivision located at 711 E. New York Street at the southeast corner of E. New York Street and N. Union Street. The subject property is currently occupied by McDonald’s with a drive-thru restaurant facility and its parking lot. It is now zoned B-3 commercial use and wholesale district with a Special Use for a Planned Development. It is currently composed by 8 parcels. The Petitioner is trying to consolidate all those 8 parcels into only 1 parcel. Concurrently with this proposal the Petitioner is also requesting the approval of a Final Plan Revision, which entails exterior and interior remodeling of the facility, the addition of a 3rd drive-thru, which meets also the stacking requirements. Parking requirements are being met. From 39 parking spaces they are going to lose 3 parking spaces due to a storage that is going to be built on the property, but like I said, the parking requirements are being met as well as the stacking requirements. If the Commissioners have any questions for staff, I will be more than happy to answer them. Or if you have any questions for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is also here.
Mr. Sieben said just to clarify, so this is also an addition besides interior and exterior remodel. It is not a 3rd drive-thru per se. It is an additional window on that addition so it will allow stacking. There is currently a double drive-thru now that was done a few years ago.
My name is Kenneth Sack with Watermark Engineering at 2631 Ginger Woods Parkway, Aurora. The 3rd window they are talking about is there is a pay window and then there is your pickup window. They are adding what they call a pull forward window. Basically if their order is taking a while, they will have the customer pull up to the 3rd window. That way the drive-thru can keep functioning. That’s the purpose of the 3rd window. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Minnella said staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Duncan
Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Anderson
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds
Nays: None
Mr. Minnella said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
Mr. Minnella said staff recommends approval for the Final Plan Revision.
Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Duncan
Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Owusu-Safo
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds
Nays: None
Mr. Minnella said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
17-00637 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of West Aurora High School Subdivision located at 1201 W. New York Street
Mrs. Vacek said the Petitioner, West Aurora School District, is requesting approval of a Final Plat for the West Aurora High School Subdivision. Just to give you a little bit of background, in 2015 they did rezone their property and did a Final Plan on their property. Then in 2016 the Petitioner incorporated 4 additional properties into their Plan Description and revised their Final Plan to modify some parking. As a condition of that, they were to come back to us to consolidate their property. So that is what is before you today. There are several parcels in the property that they own, so they would be consolidating it into 4 lots.
Chairman Truax said so really there is no, other than the lot consolidation, there is no real change.
Mrs. Vacek said correct. They are adding some easements that were requested by Engineering. We would recommend approval of the Resolution approving the Final
Plat for West Aurora High School Subdivision located at 1201 W. New York Street.
Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mr. Chambers
Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Duncan
Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds
Nays: None
Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, July 27, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.
This Resolution was Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee
Pending
Committee Reports:
A) Amendments
B) Grant and Award Research
C) Comprehensive Plan
Announcements:
Mr. Sieben said the next meeting will be Wednesday, August 2nd. We will also have a meeting on August 16th.
Adjournment:
A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Cameron, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Truax adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07192017-1090
Alerts Sign-up