City of Aurora Planning Commission met May 3.

By Lhalie Castillo

Aug 17, 2017

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission:

Call to Order

Roll Call

Others Present

Approval of Minutes:

17-00367 Approval of the Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 2017.

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

Agenda:

17-00226 A Resolution Approving the Final Plat for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2, Located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard

See Attachment for Items 17-00226 and 17-00227.

A motion was made by Mrs. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Garcia, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 5/11/2017. The motion carried.

17-00227 A Resolution Approving a Final Plan on Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2, Located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard for a Business and Professional, Office (2400) and Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services (3300) Use

See Attachment for Items 17-00226 and 17-00227.

A motion was made by Mr. Garcia, seconded by Mr. Chambers, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 5/11/2017. The motion carried.

Attachment for Items 17-00226 and 17-00227:

17-00226 A Resolution approving the Final Plat for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2 located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard (Henkels & McCoy Inc. – 17-00226 / AU02/4-16.178-Fsd/Fpn – SB – Ward 1)

17-00227 A Resolution approving a Final Plan for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2 located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard for a Business and Professional Office (2400) and Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services (3300) Use (Henkels & McCoy Inc. – 17-00227 / AU02/4-16.178-Fsd/Fpn – SB – Ward 1)

Mr. Broadwell said a little bit of background. The subject property is located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard in the Church Corporate Park and is zoned M-1 Manufacturing District Limited. Henkels and McCoy Inc. is a privately held utility infrastructure contractor company and they will be moving their regional office to the existing 18,672 square foot building on the property at 975 Corporate Boulevard. The property located at 985 Corporate Boulevard is presently vacant and is 2.74 acres in size. There is additional information in the property information sheet. The Petitioner is requesting approval of a Final Plat for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision 2. Details of the request include consolidating the existing Lot 1 and Lot 2 into a single lot. The size of the subject property is 4.97 acres. Concurrently with this proposal, the Petitioner is requesting approval of a Final Plan for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard for a Business and Professional, Office, and Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services use. Details of the request include expansion of existing parking to 65 parking stalls to serve the office staff at 975 Corporate Boulevard. The Petitioner is also proposing to construct an 8,000 square foot warehouse building with 8 grade level truck doors at 985 Corporate Boulevard, which will house construction materials and supplies. We have plans that we can look at more carefully in just a moment. They are also proposing outside storage, including storage units for equipment. However, these will not be permanent, as they are only on-site for the restocking of materials. Finally, an 8 foot tall wooden security fence will be installed on the perimeter to surround the storage facility and parking area and landscaping materials will also be placed along the subject property’s perimeter for adequate screening, especially along Corporate Boulevard and Church Road.

Good evening. I’m Lori Sartin from Henkels and McCoy in Bluebell, Pennsylvania. It is nice to see everyone tonight. We are a 94 year old company, privately held company, and we are a utility infrastructure contractor. We build infrastructure for utility contractors. We’ve been actually in the Chicago Metro area for about 10 years up in the Batavia area and we are actually in a leased facility that’s about 7,500 square feet now and we’ve just outgrown our area. So we were looking to put permanent residence in a permanent location on our map and we have been looking in the area for probably about a year and a half and this piece of property came up for sale. With the available lot beside it, it was very enticing to us to be able to have a warehouse to store utilities and store materials to be able to bring the materials in and get those back out to sites around the Chicago area. This is a regional office, the central region office for us, so that’s why the 20,000 or 18,000 square foot building to the right of the site will house our corporate or our central headquarters office, so you will see a lot more staff people there, which will house HR, Marketing and a lot more staff than just a typical normal project. So that’s why the building meets our needs for that, so basically not having to have a yard associated and then a corporate office building not attached, so being able to have both things in one location is very enticing to us. It met our needs. I have 2 people that can walk through the site plan if anyone is interested.

Mr. Garcia said once you are done with the build-out here, what’s the anticipated employment growth here?

Ms. Sartin said we are actually going to double in size to about 75 more employees to this location. However, I met with our staff here in Batavia this morning and we actually increased to about 100 more members then we have now. We are currently at about 40 people in the Batavia area and by today’s counts we are going to be up about 100 by the time everything is said and done.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said what kind of material are you planning on storing in that 8,000 square foot building proposed?

Ms. Sartin said typically what happens is a utility company will contract us to build infrastructure for them, so we will be getting parts from a contractor or from a utility company, whether that is rolls of cable to install or pieces of equipment like transformers to put in ground, so those are things that we would keep in warehouses and once those jobs are ready to start or begin we then load up those materials and then take those to job sites so they can be installed into whatever area we’ve been assigned work to do that. It also will be housing our safety equipment, which would be utility signs, caution signs, safety equipment, testing materials or testing equipment to make sure that we have voltage and those kinds of things. We need high testing equipment for that.

Mrs. Cole said I have a question regarding parking places. I know they said there were 65 parking places. Are there additional parking places?

Ms. Sartin said that was 65 for the office.

Mrs. Cole said and then there is additional parking? How many people are working in the office?

Ms. Sartin said we have about 65 in the office and then we have the warehouse side that we will have trucks that are there, so employees will bring their personal vehicles. Miro can explain more of the parking and the warehouse side of it. We have personal vehicle parking spaces and then we have truck parking spaces, so they would park their personal vehicles and take their trucks out.

Mrs. Cole said so the warehouse side of this is where the increase is in where trucks would come in?

Ms. Sartin said yes.

Good evening everybody. My name is Miro Moro. I’m an architect with Ware Malcomb. We put together the architectural site plan and building footprint for this 8,000 square foot warehouse. The majority of the parking for employees is oversized for semi-trucks because the employees probably go to the job site, sometime maybe they use their personal trucks to help with the distribution. All the parking spaces over there are not like typical 9 by 18 or 10 by 20. Those are to accommodate vans and pickup trucks for the employees. There is plenty of parking in the area. As far as the footprint of the building, the 8,000 square feet, there are drive-in bays, 4 and 4 on each side, we have elevations we can go through later on, for the trucks to pull in, get the equipment and get out to the job site.

Mr. Cameron said I’m assuming that the vehicles that are used in the construction process are stored there overnight. I suppose it is a function of how far it is to where the job is, but what would be a typical maximum number of trucks that would be stored there on an overnight basis?

Ms. Sartin said right now we are looking at about 30 trucks on site. A lot of the trucks usually stay out on site, but right now bringing back to this location about 30. Since this is one of our central regional offices, we have trucks coming from all over the country, so if we have a project that is starting up and they need to deploy trucks to Batavia or if they needed to deploy trucks all the way to Pataskala, we could then bring 10 trucks in that would then be deployed the next day. It is more like a central location to pull trucks in and then pull trucks back out. We don’t have things staying at this office very long. It is just more of a central location to be able to deploy. Mr. Pilmer said I have a question. On Lot 1 around the building, is that all paved? Is the entire surface paved?

Ms. Sartin said there is some green, but it was paved.

Mr. Pilmer said so in the northeast corner, there are some sections there. Is that outdoor storage? It is kind of split off with the rectangles.

Ms. Sartin said so we have up in the top part around the northeast corner, that’s all green space up around the corner up where the roads are. This will be green space. The fenced in lot will go and then you see the little boxes with the triangles. Those would be outside storage for like cable reels and maybe pipe that will be coming into the yard and then coming back out. The whole area around it would have the fenced in area, but that would be green space buffering the road to the space. So the top part of that would not be having trucks in there. The lighter shading is grass and the darker shading is the pavement.

Chairman Truax said so if someone is driving down Church Road, what do they see? A fence or grass, or both?

Ms. Sartin said the grass, the fence, and the trees. So they will be seeing trees, grass and the fenced in lawn. They will not be seeing what’s in the property.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said does that storage facility have like a gate that closes each day?

Mr. Moro said there is a gate. It is directly from Corporate Boulevard. There is a gate to enter the property.

Ms. Sartin said and then there is also a gate coming down the private entrance between the new building and the existing building. There is also a gate on the one side. So there will be 2 gates.

Mr. Chambers said will this warehouse be functional 7 days a week, 24 hours?

Ms. Sartin said we do have emergency services if there is some type of power outage, so we could be called out in the middle of the night for any type of power outage, which means employees come and get vehicles and then be deployed. As a general rule, we don’t work 24/7 unless there is some type of power outage.

Mr. Chambers said what are the planned hours of operation?

Ms. Sartin said usually we work 6:00 to 3:00 to 5:00 at night, sometimes later in the summer, depending on the conditions and the weather.

Mrs. Anderson said how about light? Any special lighting outside of the building on the grounds?

Ms. Sartin said we are going to have outside lighting. The whole area should be lit.

Mr. Cameron said do you have lighting profiles to make sure that the light is not escaping that?

Mr. Moro said that will be part of the permitting process for this building. We obviously will provide photometric plans and we are aware of the guidelines.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said for the additional impervious area, is the existing detention pond sized adequately for any additional impervious area added?

Ms. Sartin said we actually did all the calculations for that to make sure that we met the conditions for that, so the green space around the building was actually increased to be able to make sure that we met the conditions for the pond.

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said were like any green infrastructure considerations looked into for this area?

Mr. Duffy said you asked about the detention facility. Yes, the detention pond is sized adequately to provide the storage for this site. Because of the use of the heavy equipment in the warehouse area, it is going to be a regular type pavement. There is no green infrastructure included in this.

Mr. Pilmer said I have a question maybe for staff. On the plat, on Lot 1 coming off of Church Road, it looks like there is a 15 foot city easement that goes right to the middle of that building and it just comes and stops.

Mr. Duffy said there is a 15 foot easement along the eastern portion of the site. That’s an existing storm sewer that runs from the corner of Corporate and Church down to the detention pond. There is a storm sewer that’s going to be maintained. The building will not be over that easement.

Mr. Garcia said I have a question for staff. What school district is this representing?

Mr. Sieben said this is Batavia. North of the Tollway is Batavia up there.

Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend approval of the Resolution approving the Final Plat for Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2 located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Anderson

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Garcia

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: None

Mr. Broadwell said staff would recommend approval of the Resolution approving a Final Plan on Lot 1 of Church Corporate Park Resubdivision Number 2 located at 975 and 985 Corporate Boulevard for a Business and Professional, Office, and Warehouse, Distribution and Storage Services use.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mr. Garcia

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Chambers

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mr. Garcia, 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, May 11, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

17-00284 An Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for an Educational Services (6100) Use on the Property located at 250 and 254-300 E. Indian Trail Road being the north side of Indian Trail Road between Aurora Avenue and Mitchell Road

Mrs. Morgan said this is a Special Use for educational services on both properties. Currently they are zoned B-2(S) and B-2. The Special Use is for other uses, not educational services. The details include an expansion of the East Aurora School District’s early childhood program and additional spaces at 254-300 E. Indian Trail, and that is the building to the right. It was kind of built as more of a retail strip center. They are currently in portions of that building and they are expanding to additional portions of that building. After the expansion, they are looking at adding about 18,500 square feet. They are doing interior renovations. Exterior-wise, they are adding a bus drop-off at the front of the building with a canopy and a parent drop-off at the rear of the building. Staff is working with the Petitioner currently to alter some of the configuration of this site from what you see in this plan. Planning staff, as well as Engineering, has worked with the applicant to do a one-way around both buildings. So you would enter into the site, proceed to the far west, circle around both buildings. There would be a drop-off at the building to the left, it would have a pull off drop-off, and then people can continue and pull off to the building to the right for a drop-off as well. Staff thinks with this configuration, as well as they are going to a more full day program with additional bussing, that it alleviate any stacking issues on the adjacent properties. Staff is requesting a 10 foot city easement along E. Indian Trail Road for the 254-300 building to the right for a future bike path. In addition, we are putting a Special Use onto the building to the left. At the time that this was converted to a school use, the school system didn’t have to go through rezoning like they do today, so we are adding that as a Special Use. I have the Petitioner, Craig Welter, to answer any questions if you don’t have any questions for staff.

The Petitioners were sworn in.

I’m Craig Welter with Cordogan Clark in Aurora. I’ll give you a short update. We worked with the School District. They received a grant opportunity to expand their early childhood program and this seemed like an ideal location for it. Part of working with the city on this was the idea of making sure we bring it up to speed with current zoning and the Special Use seemed the route to go, so we are here presenting.

Mrs. Head said I’m a little confused about how you are doing drop-off. Could you explain that?

Mr. Welter said absolutely. As it currently exists, the Kindergarten Center on the west side drop-off, there is a bus lane in the front and then the drop-off is on the west side coming around back and loops back to the same entry point. Now that they’ve taken over, the School District will be occupying the majority of that, both sites. We’ve worked with the staff to look at creating a one-way from the west coming into the side and going all the way around clock-wise the site. It is going to allow us to stack more parents on site. Currently in the east side of that site at the early childhood, there is stacking on the adjacent properties going on because they all use the front of the building to drop off, both busses and parent drop-off, so by making this change it will allow us to put a lot more cars on the site, off the streets, and not on the adjacent properties.

Mrs. Head said the busses and the cars are going to be using the same directional?

Mr. Welter said the busses will stay in the front of the building. We are really trying to segregate busses in front and parents in back and keep that separate to protect and have safe and secure area.

Mr. Garcia said so we’re going to the back of the building, we are using the west side to enter because currently they use the east side. Am I correct?

Mr. Welter said the Kindergarten is fed from, they enter at the center of the lot, both lots and they make their way to the west to the parking and then around the building and then they return. They actually turn back on the west side and return through the same entry point. We don’t have parent drop-off in the back.

Mr. Garcia said I understand that. I’m just looking at the fact that I know that there is playground in the back area. I think a better route would be if we started from the west side coming to the back because of that blind spot on the northeast corner. That’s a blind spot and you have the playground area. Where it says proposed expansion, approximately 19,000 square feet, it is covering a playground area that is back there. Has there been any thought of changing the rotation on that?

Mr. Welter said the difficulty with that is the kids typically will come out the other side more often than not.

Mr. Garcia said not so much for pickup. I’m referring more to staff who actually are driving to the back end here. I believe it is a safer route because you do have individuals who may come through on the northeast side with that blind spot right on the corner.

Mrs. Morgan said I’m sorry, are you saying that you think they should go from west to east?

Mr. Sieben said that’s what they are doing. I don’t think Craig explained it clearly. After the meeting, you are coming west to east in the back.

Chairman Truax said are most of the children dropped off by parents or by busses?

Mr. Welter said the hope, with the bussing and a full day aspect, is it will have increased drop-off use of the bussing because right now it is a half day for early childhood in the current location. Because of that short time period, they are getting more parent drop-off, but now expanding that to a full day early childhood program, the idea is that parents will get more comfortable with that timeline and have more students riding the bus.

Chairman Truax said how young is the youngest child in the early childhood?

Mr. Welter said 3 years old.

Mrs. Head said and is the bus drop-off zone designated as bus only?

Mr. Welter said it is not, but it could be. This is a multi-use site so at the period of day when the drop would be, they’ve got staff that is outside the building meeting the children at the curbs, so they will have control of that site during those hours, but I think after hours and such you could have parents and non-parents driving on this route.

Mr. Reynolds said what will the hours be?

Mr. Welter said I think the District is still in the process of planning that. There is some changing with busses throughout the District coming on and they are working through a plan to finalize those things.

Mr. Reynolds said what about ingress and egress? The only way to get to it is off of Indian Trail, correct?

Mr. Welter said correct.

Mr. Reynolds said and traffic like at 4:30, this afternoon I was out there, it could be a little tricky to get in there or to get out.

Mr. Welter said so the students leave at the latest by 3:10. That’s the latest they will be there.

Mr. Reynolds said you don’t think that’s going to be a problem traffic-wise?

I’m Bernie Weiler, Attorney for the District. Part of the planning is that there will be half day/full day kindergarten and early childhood and there will also be first grade continuation from the kindergarten program, so each of those programs are going to have staggered times is what the planning is so as to alleviate everybody being there at once. That’s part of the vision that the Assistant Superintendents have worked out.

Mrs. Head said so the exit out where the busses are you can go left or right across 4 lanes?

Mr. Weiler said on-site or across Indian Trail?

Mrs. Head said is there going to be signage where you can only go with the traffic?

Mr. Welter said it is currently set up with both directions actually. I haven’t heard of any issues on-site since that’s been active for 2 years now. That was a concern that was brought up when we added the Kindergarten Center to that site, but it hasn’t been an issue. We’ll work with the city if it becomes an issue. If there any close calls or anything, we’d be happy to adjust that to a one-way out to the right.

Mr. Cameron said on the back side where the playground is, are you feeding the traffic when they come in from the west, do they exit on the east side of the property or do they exit right between the buildings?

Mr. Welter said ideally we stress that they exit out between the buildings, but they do have access. There is a cross easement access between those spaces, so they could go out the other direction as well, and that might be encouraged after we see what’s going on.

Mr. Cameron said what plans have you made to solve the problem of traveling from the building to the play area? It was a problem 8 or 10 years ago when they first occupied the building and I don’t think there has been anything done in that timeframe.

Mr. Welter said well I do think the one-way direction from west to east will help because you’ve got clear sight now. We’re raising the curb a little bit to create kind of a speed bump in essence through that area to encourage the slow down as well. We’ll have signage as well indicating beware of students crossing. I think the help to this is it will be now where we had multiple users, the majority of this site will be occupied by parents who are either picking up kids or by staff or someone related to the educational use of the building on the back side.

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

Mrs. Morgan staff would recommend conditional approval of an Ordinance granting a Special Use Permit for an Educational Services Use on the property located at 250 and 254-300 E. Indian Trail Road being the north side of Indian Trail Road between Aurora Avenue and Mitchell Road with the following conditions:

1. That the applicant alters the site plan to show one-way circulation around both buildings.

2. That a 10 foot city easement along E. Indian Trail for the property at 254-300 E. Indian Trail shall be provided at this time and upon the City Engineer’s request such city easement shall be dedicated as public right-of-way for a future bike path.

Motion Of Conditional Approval Was Made By: Mrs. Cole

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Anderson

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mr. Garcia, 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?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said yes the proposal is.

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. Garcia said it is just a continuous use for educational purposes.

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. Garcia said it is currently and the District will work with the city if there is adverse effect on this.

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. Reynolds said I think that was already addressed earlier. If there is a problem, I think they will get it handled.

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 I think that’s also to be addressed in the conditional approval and if there is any issue, it will be addressed later.

9a. Will the Special Use not preclude the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties due to the saturation or concentration of similar uses in the general area?

Mr. Pilmer said this is an existing retail center that with the change will convert to educational, which is consistent with the building adjacent that also changed zoning several years ago.

9b. Is the Special Use in all other respects in conformance to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the City Council pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission?

Chairman Truax said I believe it is in conformance with other respects.

Mrs. Morgan said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mrs. Cole, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 5/11/2017. The motion carried.

17-00333 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning properties located at the northeast corner of Orchard Road and Prairie Street, 137 N. 4th Street, and 14 Blackhawk Street respectively from R-1 One Family Dwelling, R-3 One Family Dwelling, R-4A(S) Two Family Dwelling and R-5(S) Multiple Family Dwelling District to P Park and Recreation

Mrs. Vacek said it is actually R-4 with a Special Use and there is a parcel that is zoned R-5(S) with a Special Use for one of the properties, so I’ll kind of get into that. The subject property was recently conveyed to the Fox Valley Park District through an Intergovernmental Agreement with the city, so what is before you tonight is just to downzone these properties. There are 3 properties. There is one at the northeast corner of Orchard and Prairie, which is zoned R-1. There is another one a 137 N. 4th Street, which is zoned R-3, which is a Single Family Dwelling District. Then 14 Blackhawk Street is actually zoned R-4(S), which is a Two Family Dwelling District and R-5(S), which is a Multiple Family Dwelling District and all of that is being rezoned to P Park for the Fox Valley Park District. I can turn it over to the Petitioner unless you have any questions of me.

The Petitioners were sworn in.

Good evening. Jeff Palmquist with the Fox Valley Park District. I just want to thank the Commission for the opportunity to present the petition tonight. This is really the last piece of a number of steps in the agreement that Tracey alluded to. This land conveyance Intergovernmental Agreement was executed last year between the City of Aurora and the Fox Valley Park District, which was really a win-win in the swop of a number of properties. Since that time, it’s been a number of month, both sides have been fulfilling their obligations with surveys, deeds and other construction and improvements per the agreement. That has all been complete and the deeds have all been swopped. The real last order of business is to change the zoning to Park on the parcels coming to the Fox Valley Park District, really in keeping with work that some of you did some years ago when all of the various parks were zoned to P from an assorted previous zoning. This is consistent with that action. It is the intention of the Park District to certainly improve and maintain all 3 of these sites as open space.

Mr. Owusu-Safo said are these intended to be like playgrounds or just general open space?

Mr. Palmquist said the 4th Street park, that’s the Thaddeus Weisner Park, and that’s already established as a park and it is the intention of the Park District to continue to invest in that park and make it better than ever. The property at the Orchard and Prairie intersection is part of the greater Gilman Trail, so that’s going to stay as is. There is a bench there now or a couple of benches and a path through there, so we’ll continue to maintain that. Actually there is a City of Aurora welcome sign there as well that will stay. The third and probably most prominent property of the 3 is the 2.8 acre site, the old West Aurora High School and Aurora Christian School site that was demolished a couple of years ago and the site planted. We do have plans for a very nice park that is going to be under construction this summer. That will include a playground, actually a small splash pad, a shelter that has some of the same forms as the old school and some other very nice features.

Chairman Truax said the property at Prairie and Orchard, the very corner of Prairie and Orchard doesn’t look like it is included. Is that already Park District?

Mr. Palmquist said that’s KDOT. We would continue to maintain that.

Chairman Truax said so it will look like.

Mr. Palmquist said it will be as one ownership. It basically functions as maybe an expanded right-of-way. You’d continue to maintain your right-of-way. That’s how we’ll view that property.

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 approval of the Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 3100, being the Aurora Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map attached thereto, by downzoning the properties located at the northeast corner of Orchard Road and Prairie Street, 137 N. 4th Street and 14 Blackhawk Street respectively from R-1, R-3, R-4A(S) and R-5(S) to Park and Recreation.

Motion Of Approval Was Made By: Mr. Chambers

Motion Seconded By: Mrs. Cole

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

Nays: None Pass: Mr. Chambers

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.

Mrs. Cole said these pieces of property are currently park and we are just bringing them into the right zoning classification.

Mr. Cameron said the idea of scattered open space and park areas throughout the city are one of the goals of the City of Aurora.

Mrs. Anderson said there should be no adverse effect.

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 there should be no change.

Mr. Cameron said these sites are really not designed to be entered except in a walking mode. They really don’t have pavement or anything or storage of cars on-site, so it shouldn’t really affect anything.

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

Mrs. Cole said it is.

7b. Is the rezoning 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?

Mrs. Cole said again, it is.

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

Chairman Truax said yes.

Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Planning and Development Committee on Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mrs. Cole, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Planning & Development Committee, on the agenda for 5/11/2017. The motion carried.

17-00127 An Ordinance Approving Obvious Changes to Aurora's Comprehensive Plan for Thirty-Seven Areas Located Throughout the City of Aurora (City of Aurora - 17-00127 / KDWK-16.234-COMP - SB) (Public Hearing)

Mr. Broadwell said this is to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan. In your Legistar packet, you can see there is a report that we’ve put together. There are 37 different areas, but we can move this along quickly I think. So just a little bit of background, again the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in order to establish a general development plan for the City of Aurora to accomplish 4 things; guide development, improve quality of life, reflect the desired goals of the community in the city’s actions and decisions, and form a more cohesive community based on these 3 goals. We believe that this will help future development. If you open up the report, there are a few things going on here. On the second page, you can see that there is a Table of Contents. This lists all of the 37 areas that we’ve put together. While I’m talking, I’ll just give like kind of an overview of the first 3 sites to give you a sense of what we did and then you can feel free to look through these areas and once I’m done just ask questions about what’s in here. The first area is on page 4. This is 285 NE Industrial Drive. Previously this was rezoned in the fall of 2016 from R-1 to M-1 Manufacturing District. So you can see on the first page the Comprehensive Plan has it as utilities, but it is for a warehouse, I believe. Then you can scroll down to the next page, page 5, and you can see an aerial of site with the buildings and how it is laid out, and then the proposed change to industrial, which more suits the existing use. You can see the second one on page 6. This is 355-61 Old Indian Trail. The Comprehensive Plan has it has high density residential, but if you go down to the next page, you can see that it is 2 vacant lots. One is a parking lot and one’s vacant and then the other is office. One thing that I want to explain a little carefully is that the zoning is one of the aspects that we use to identify these areas, but also the land use code. An office is identified as this certain code, but a vacant lot is not high density residential and neither is the office, so we found it through this like analysis to change the sites to these proposed designations. Then the third one, on page 8, you can see 3033 Molitor Road. It is a pond and the Comp Plan has it as low density residential. If you scroll down to page 9 it is Open Space Conservation because it is a pond. It is these little things that we found as we were performing this analysis. Does this all make sense? Are there any questions about any of these sites?

Mrs. Owusu-Safo said in your analysis, were you simply looking at the current use versus what it is zoned as or as you looking at it as what it should be used on that?

Mr. Broadwell said part of it is zoning, but it is also the use. If you go back to the 285 NE Industrial, that was R-1 and changing it to M-1, so that was part of it, but then also like the use comes along with it, so it is kind of the factor of these three things of how it can more reflect the existing use.

Mrs. Cole said it is page 14 and 15 on ours, but I think your numbers are not coinciding with ours, it actually has to do with the Park District and since they are still here, it was zoned Open Space Conservation and in reality there is a single low density residential on that site. Is that not property that the Park District is maybe looking down the road to purchase if it were to ever go on the market or no?

Mr. Broadwell said it is a single family residential. I don’t know of any plans for the property for the Park District. We’re looking through this file with the mindset that there are places where when it was formed like someone just made a mistake or something, so part of this is also a correctness.

Mr. Sieben said so you are referring to the one on the screen on Highland?

Mrs. Cole said yes.

Mr. Sieben said that’s currently a single family home. We don’t want to designate it now because that’s someone living there, but if they were to buy it then we could add onto it. Actually if you look on that same aerial further to the north there is a parking lot that connects to Highland to that park, so there are other pieces. I think what Steve was looking at is we are looking at certain small areas, but I think on the next go around further more parcels on Highland, we talked about this today, more parcels to the north there on Highland could also be included in that Park Open Space designation. We’ll continue to clean up that area and I’m sure the Park District may be buying additional pieces through that area.

Mr. Cameron said I’ve got a question on a piece on Molitor.

Mr. Broadwell said are you talking about 3033 Molitor?

Mr. Cameron said that piece and then down on the next one. It is currently zoned single family, right, low density residential? Is that land there, could that be considered taking a value? In other words, it is conservation zoning and somebody, I assume, owns it.

Mr. Broadwell said so we are not changing the zoning of the property.

Mr. Cameron said is it a lake?

Mr. Broadwell said yes, it is a pond or a lake, retention pond I think. We are just proposing that it be identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Open Space Conservation instead of Low Density Residential.

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

Mr. Cameron said I would suggest that this be postponed until the next meeting so we have an opportunity to look through this. We’ve got 80 pages of data coming here without the chance to really look through it. I would be uncomfortable with voting on this at the moment.

Chairman Truax said are you making a motion to continue?

Mr. Cameron said yes.

Motion To Continue To The 5/17/2017 Meeting Was Made By: Mr. Cameron

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Garcia

Ayes: Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Divine, Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo, Mr. Pilmer, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: None

A motion was made by Mr. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Garcia, that this agenda item be Held in Planning Commission. The motion carried.

Pending

Committee Reports:

A) Amendments

B) Grant and Award Research

C) Comprehensive Plan

A) Citizen Advisory Committee

Announcements

Adjournment:

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mrs. Anderson, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Truax adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

https://www.aurora-il.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_05032017-1019

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

City of Aurora Planning Commission

!RECEIVE ALERTS

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

Sign-up

DONATE

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

Donate