Dupage Policy Journal

City of Aurora Planning Commission met Oct. 16.

Here is the minutes provided by the Commission

Call to Order

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

Roll Call

The following Commission members were present: Chairman Pilmer, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Hull, Mr. Reynolds and Ms. Tidwell. Mrs. Anderson, Mr. Gonzales, Mrs. Head, Mrs. Owusu-Safo called in and excused themselves from the meeting.

Others Present

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

Others Present: Dean Vardouniotis (1432 Southlawn Place), Bill Vardouniotis (1432 Southlawn Place), Bill Deligiannis (785 Root Street), Bruce Goldsmith (Dykema Law Firm), Stuart Peterson (Ruddy, King, Peterson Law Group), Karen Wan (Sustainable Aurora Member).

Approval of Minutes

19-0913 Approval of the Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting on October 2, 2019. A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded byMr. Elsbree, that the minutes be approved and filed. The motion carried.

Public Comment

Chairman Pilmer said if you are here for an item that does not appear on the agenda as a public hearing and you wish to speak to the Commission, we can give you 3 minutes to do so.

My name is Dean Vardouniotis from 1432 Southlawn Place, Aurora, Illinois 60506. Good evening. Like I said, my name is Dean Vardouniotis. I live at 1432 Southlawn Place, which is the house immediately next door to Aurora University’s newly constructed 500 space parking garage. Aurora University is requesting that the city approve the removal of a fence that separates the University’s campus from our home and allows them to have an additional entrance/exit for their parking garage and parking lot. The University approached my family in September regarding the fence and gave us 2 options. Either we could agree to allow them to take down the fence that crosses Southlawn, or they would initiate a process with the city to allow them to take down the fence. A decision needs to be made immediately to allow them sufficient time to change their Master Plan. My family stated that we did not want the fence to come down because not only would it affect our quality of live but also our neighbor’s quality of life. I spoke with many of our neighbors who expressed concern with removing the fence and I can speak on their behalf. My neighbors, my family, and I are requesting you to reject Aurora University’s request to remove the fence. At the very least, I’m asking you to please delay your decision as no time has been provided for the neighborhood to adequately provide their input or for the city to conduct any studies. To my knowledge, the University and the City of Aurora began discussing building a parking garage on their campus at least 2 years ago. The University conducted several neighborhood meetings between November 2017 and June 2018 and the city conducted public hearings to discuss the proposed parking garage. The required zoning changes and the requested changes to the University’s Master Plan before was approved in the summer of 2018. Recently Aurora University’s President, Rebecca Sherrick stated that the University chose to build a parking garage and essentially have one site large enough to accommodate the footprint necessary for the parking garage. The city approved all aspects of the project, including the location of entry and egress points. If the city already approved having Prairie Street as the only entry/egress points, then why change it now? President Sherrick further stated that now that we are within weeks of the structure being completed, we have to contend with the fence the city required in response to neighborhood concerns a few years ago. To my knowledge, the parking structure drawings and plans that were presented and approved with the Master Plan showed only one entry and egress point, Prairie Street. Never Southlawn Place. There should not be any reason to contend with the fence now since it was in the approved Master Plan for the fence to remain. The parking garage has been built within the University’s parking lots. Their parking lots already have access to four entry/egress points; two on Prairie Street, one on Gladstone Avenue and one on Marseillaise. Is it necessary to have a fifth entry/egress point for their parking lots? If the fence is removed, Southlawn will be inundated with traffic that it cannot handle. There is only a 2 way stop sign in 1 of the 4 intersections on Southlawn before it dead-ends at Edgelawn Drive. Those familiar with the area take extra precaution at every intersection on Southlawn because they know how dangerous it can be for those unfamiliar drivers driving through. Many of our neighbors have lived on Southlawn for many years and can attest…

Mrs. Vacek said time.

Good evening, Bill Vardouniotis, same address. Many of our neighbors have lived on Southlawn for many years and can attest to the many accidents and near accidents they have witnessed. Even if the University hires traffic cops to direct the traffic from Southlawn toward Prairie Street via Evanslawn Avenue, bottlenecks will likely occur and the traffic cops will likely allow drivers to drive down Southlawn to alleviate the backup. Why not instead utilize the same traffic cops inside the University’s own parking garage lots to direct traffic to existing entrance/egress points on Prairie, Gladstone and Marseillaise instead? I find it interesting the University plans for at least 2 years and builds a $10 million dollar 500 parking space garage with only one entry/egress point and then realizes weeks before opening that it needs a second entry/egress point. I also find it interesting that the University holds several neighborhood meetings and required public hearings to receive approval to change their Master Plan to allow them to build a parking garage with one entry/egress point and then weeks before opening the parking garage the University proposes a second entry/egress point on Southlawn as part of an amendment or revision to the Master Plan, which does not require public notice and then also decides not to let their neighbors know about the proposed revision. Was this part of the plan from the beginning by the University? I requested the University to conduct a neighborhood meeting to provide information to the neighbors regarding the proposed revision. President Sherrick responded that their plan is to hold a neighborhood meeting when they have something definitive to share, which I’m interpreting as after they receive the city’s response to removing the fence. In conclusion, my neighbors, my family, and I are asking you to reject the University’s request to remove the fence and to reject the revision to allow vehicle access entering or leaving campus by means of Southlawn Place. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, Bill Deligiannis from 78 S. Root Street in Aurora, Illinois. In regard to the proposal by Aurora University to alter the Master Plan that was approved by the City of Aurora, the question comes down to procedures and protocol. Are we to accept the fact that a multi-million dollar project was planned for many years, has been constructed on an on-time schedule and now at the point of near completion they are asking the city to change or to modify the entry and access points to the structure? Or was this part of the plan from day one and not as was expressed earlier not to go through the informative process of communicating with the neighborhood, informing the neighborhood, ask for the plans and then moving forward in that direction. The structure has been built. It is not going to be torn down now. Might there have been more resistance if that initial proposal was proposed a year or two years ago whenever that was? Now is this just the opportunity for the University and/or the city to allow it to slip through and affecting the quality of life, not only for one home but the neighborhood that is to the west of the University? Thank you.

Agenda

19-0819 A Resolution Approving a Final Plat consolidating lot A of Island Avenue Addition and part of lots 8, 9 and 12 of the Assessor's Map of Stolp's Island for the Silver Plate Subdivision located at the northeast corner of Stolp Avenue and East Downer Place for a Food and beverage services (2500) use. (City of Aurora / Olive Tree Properties, LLC - / AU22/3-19.173-FSD - AM - Ward 6).

Mr. Minnella said I’m a Planner with the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development. I know most of you, but I see for me new faces, so it is a pleasure meeting you tonight. The title of this Resolution actually needs to be changed being an appealable item. The title of the Resolution should read a Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Resolution approving a Final Plat consolidating Lot A of Island Avenue Addition and part of Lots 8, 9 and 12 of the Assessor’s Map of Stolp’s Island for the Silver Plate Subdivision located at the northeast corner of Stolp Avenue and East Downer Place for a Food and Beverage Services (2500) use. Staff will modify the title accordingly as of tomorrow. I apologize for the inconvenience. The reason why the City of Aurora staff is coming before you tonight is because due to the Subdivision Control Ordinance, the 2 lots that are currently existing at the southeast corner of Stolp Avenue and Downer Place need to be consolidated because the new owner, Olive Tree Properties, LLC, is planning to expand their business onto a portion of the right-of-way that was sold to Olive Tree Properties, LLC in the past few weeks. They are planning on expanding their business, building a deck and under the deck there would be more usable space for possible different or similar uses in the food and beverage business. This is just a way to clean up these 2 lots, consolidate those 2 lots and create 1 lot where the property owner can then apply for applicable and required permits to move forward with their business proposal.

Mr. Sieben said so for a little bit more information, so this is the Silver Plate building where Charlie’s Creamery, the ice cream business, went in on the main level. They are putting in apartments up on the upper floors. This is to allow use of the basement. This will allow for a deck and then an entrance into the basement from this property, which is currently owned by the city. The city is in discussions with the owner. There is already an approved Redevelopment Agreement for the building and we’ve had some discussions for another restaurant type use for the lower level.

Mr. Minnella said staff recommends conditional approval of the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Resolution approving a Final Plat consolidating Lot A of Island Avenue Addition and part of Lots 8, 9 and 12 of the Assessor’s Map of Stolp’s Island for the Silver Plate Subdivision located at the northeast corner of Stolp Avenue and E. Downer Place for a Food and Beverage Services use with the following conditions:

Engineering approval of the site improvements is required. Any modifications for the Final Plat that may be necessary to secure Engineering approval shall be made prior to execution of the Final Plat. If a security is required for the proposed improvements, the security shall be posted prior to execution of the Final Plat.

Mr. Cameron said could you explain what part of the land don’t they own now and are they buying it and is it coming from the city?

Mr. Minnella said so if you picture to the east of the Silver Plate, right now it is a grassed area that is part of the right-of-way. Ultimately, the Olive Tree Properties, LLC will own 2/3 of that landscaped island. In order to build a deck and open up the basement, they need to engineer the perimeter of that area and because of the retaining wall, Engineering put on additional conditions. Possibly the stormwater easement might need to be moved. That’s the reason why Engineering put on that condition.

Mr. Cameron said now does this impair access to that area behind it?

Mr. Minnella said no, it will not impede the access. It will simply be a security for the Engineering Department to move forward with the project and make this expansion engineering sound.

Mr. Cameron said so Lot 8, except for that portion of Lot 7 are currently owned by the city for allowing for the access?

Mr. Minnella said correct.

Mr. Cameron said well it depends on how the engineering moves on it.

Mr. Minnella said correct. The right-of-way will still remain.

Mrs. Vacek said and Ken if you look up on the map, the part of Lot 9 is the part that the city did own that we would be then consolidating with Lot A.

Mr. Chambers said could updating the item title also be added to the condition as well?

Mr. Minnella said sure.

Motion of Conditional Approval Was Made By: Mr. Cameron

Motion Seconded By: Ms. Tidwell

Ayes: Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Hull, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Tidwell

Nays: None

Mr. Minnella said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mr. Cameron, seconded by Ms. Tidwell, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 10/23/2019. The motion carried.

19-0857 A Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Resolution Approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lot 1 of Aurora University 2nd Resubdivision to remove of the gate across Southlawn Place to allow vehicle access entering or leaving the Campus by means of Southlawn Place located at 1405 Prairie Street (Aurora University - 19-0857 AU20/4-19.178-Fpn/R - TV - Ward 4)

Mrs. Vacek said the Petitioner is requesting a Final Plan Revision. As you may recall, in October of 2018 the Petitioner did receive approval for a 503 space parking deck at the end of Southlawn, north of Prairie Street. At that time, the plan did show a gate across Southlawn Place just west of the deck’s entrance/exit so that no vehicle can travel west. The intent was to filter the vehicles to the Prairie Street entrance, which aligned with Randall Road. As the parking deck has been built and they will be ready to open sometime in November, Aurora University is now concerned that without opening up Southlawn Place to vehicle movement that there will be backups of vehicles trying to enter and exit the parking deck. Therefore, they are seeking the removal of the gate across Southlawn Place to allow the access to be more evenly distributed. I just wanted to clarify one other thing. The Aurora University’s Master Plan did show Southlawn Place as an access into the campus. The intent of the Master Plan was to eventually vacate the remaining portion of Southlawn Place for the use by the University. The vacation would not have taken place until such time that the one remaining house on Southlawn Place is acquired by the University. With that being said, staff has been working very hard with the University for several years. It’s probably since I’ve been here, which is at least 15 years in regard to construction of a parking deck on the campus as well as the parking issues in the overall area of the University. We do feel that making the parking deck more easily available will definitely help in maximizing the use of the parking deck, as well as minimizing the issues of parking on the streets in the University area. I will turn it over to the University.

Mr. Sieben said we also have Bob Greene, who is our City of Aurora Traffic Engineer, so if there any traffic related questions Bob could also answer those.

Good evening. I’m Bruce Goldsmith representing the University. Tracey remembers 15 years. Ever since I have represented the University, which goes back farther than that, the neighbors all around the campus have been concerned about parking on the streets around the campus. I’m sure some of you have been at hearings where that came up. So over time, the University, which started with having about 500 spaces on campus now has over 1,000 spaces on campus and is out of room. So as the neighbors of the larger community kept seeing more cars on their streets, the cry back was to the University to please do something about the parking situation. The city has done various things along the way. They have put no parking on one side of a street. It just pushed the cars out farther into the neighborhood, so where we didn’t used to see parking on Le Grand on the east side or out toward Buell and beyond on the west side, or farther north that that was all being observed. So the University did a parking study in 2015 and kind of showed where the distribution of parking was around the campus and it was substantial and it continues to be substantial. When the University could actually put the funds together to do something significant, they originally considered doing a 300 plus parking garage. The University finally decided to up it to 500 spaces, 503 to be exact. The idea was that the University could control its staff and its employees to maximize the use of the garage, which would give the students then the 1,000 surface spaces on campus to park and would relieve the pressure on the neighborhood. It used to be a problem because the students were actually not the most courteous parkers. That’s not a problem anymore. We don’t have any real complaints from the neighborhood about how students are parking. There were problems in the past parking over a driveway, parking onto the grass and most of the streets are a rural cross section as you may know, so there is no curb and gutter and they are fairly narrow because that’s the way it was designed when those subdivisions were built, many in the 50’s and 60’s. In order to address the problem, the University has consolidated parking on campus with this deck, but to make it efficient we’ve noticed already that Prairie is getting stacked up and we haven’t even opened the deck yet and to make a circulation pattern that makes sense, we need to open up that gate and have two way access. It is a public street. The one neighbor that’s on the street has benefited from the fact that because the gate is there it is really a private drive to their home. Well it is a public street in the Master Plan, which has been in place for years. That street was to be vacated and become University property. This is not the first time this has happened. This would be the fifth street where the city has vacated for the University. So Kensington on the east side, Calumet and Randall on the south side and Southlawn on the west side and then Evanslawn in the most recent expansion of the University campus is the designated to be available for vacation if the University acquires the homes on the west side of Evanslawn. This is nothing new. This plan has been in place a long time. We really need to think about the larger neighborhood, which is currently having 400 to 500 cars on the streets. Some of that is appropriate. We always had an arrangement in the Master Plan that the city recognized that students and faculty and employees would have the right to park in the street just like anybody else, but what we’re trying to do is take as much of that traffic off the street and put it on the University campus and this is a major improvement which is totally intended to benefit the neighborhood, and I mean the larger neighborhood. I think it has been welcomed by the larger group in many meetings we’ve had over the last number of years and is responsive to many complaints over a longer period of time that the University should do more about parking. It is an investment that could have been a library that’s a parking deck and it is being done to relieve overall parking problems in the neighborhood. We also know that about half the traffic comes from the east and half the traffic comes from the west, so in order to distribute the traffic, it makes sense to have them come out of the garage and be able to go in two different directions. It is in that framework that we are looking to remove the fence, which was really a courtesy some time ago that probably shouldn’t have been done, just like right now there is no parking on either side of the street on Southlawn, which was a courtesy to the remaining neighbor by the city. That just means that those cars that could have parked there are parking out in the neighborhood now. We are trying to eliminate that problem and do something more beneficial to the larger community and that’s the purpose of this change. I’d be glad to answer questions.

Ms. Tidwell said could you show, or could someone show, on the map where the gate is?

Mrs. Vacek said it is basically kind of where that numbering is.

Chairman Pilmer said that’s a fence that goes along the westerly side of the parking deck and around that home and that continues across Southlawn.

Mrs. Vacek said correct.

Mr. Goldsmith said and the reason it’s a fence and not a structure is that it is still an emergency access point, so we have to be able to open it if emergency vehicles have to come in. In the interim, that was the way it was handled. Now that we have already 1,000 cars coming to the campus, we are now going to have 1,500 cars coming to the campus and we need all the ways that we can get access to the campus to be successful. Otherwise, we’ll have the same problem. People won’t want to use it and then they will be back in the neighborhood. The University is absolutely committed to fully using the garage to minimize the impact on that larger neighborhood.

Ms. Tidwell said I’m not sure of whom I should ask this question, but since the parking ramp was approved last fall, was this not foreseen?

Mr. Goldsmith said it was probably an oversight at the time because it was a historical accommodation for what were at that point 3 or 4 neighbors on Southlawn and while we were at the surface level, we really didn’t need Southlawn to get access. Now that we have a parking deck, we realize, and decided on how to circulate and maximize use of the parking deck. It is kind of an unusual structure. It is called a double helix. The ramps are like this. You come in and go up to the top and come down the other side. In order to get the best circulation, we need to be able to get people out and also go in a couple of directions. So if they come out and they all have to go back to Randall, you’ve got all the people coming in on Randall, all the people going out on Randall and it is going to be a nightmare. As we got more into how we were going to handle circulation we realized that we needed to deal with the fence.

Ms. Tidwell said and Randall is on the east side of the ramp?

Mr. Goldsmith said Randall is on the east side and it accesses Prairie. Just to give you a little history, just a one minute history, when the University decided to grow originally there was no right to expand. When I first got involved quite a few years ago, we started expanding to the south. The neighbors, generally, wanted the University to expand to the south and the city wanted the University to use Prairie as the main entrance to the campus. All of the development has been south of kind of the center of the campus down to Prairie. All the new buildings are basically in that new expanded footprint and now Prairie is the main access, but we can’t come all at one point on Randall when Evanslawn is also a good point of access, especially since about half the traffic is going west or coming from the west it makes to disperse the traffic so some of it would come out of the garage going down Southlawn and some of it would go back to Randall and come out Prairie east.

Ms. Tidwell said this might be a question for staff. Staff also did not anticipate these traffic issues?

Mr. Greene said I don’t know if I really have an answer to that because I recently got involved with it. Do you guys know?

Mr. Sieben said there was always, obviously, the two access points for the deck, one on Southlawn and one on what was Randall Road to the east side. At the time when this was approved, as Bruce states, it was apparently satisfactory to the University and the city didn’t question that.

Chairman Pilmer said I think you mentioned it earlier, but eventually Southlawn will be vacated, but not until the one remaining property is acquired by the University. Is there any timeline?

Mr. Goldsmith said from the first time we had an expansion into Expansion Area #1, the city has always insisted and the University has always agreed, that no one would be forced to sell their home, that there would never be condemnation and that the owners could decide when and if they would move. So the University has bought 30 some houses over time, over many years, almost 20 years, only upon being approached by the owner. When we went through the construction process, I would say to you to show how much the University bent over backwards, the contractor was so kind to the neighbor that the neighbor invited the contractor to lunch at the end of the project. We’ve been doing everything we can to accommodate, but now we have to look at the larger good and we have to make this parking deck work and to make it work we need to have the circulation that we are talking about.

Mrs. Duncan said is there only one home now you are saying is left on Southlawn?

Mr. Goldsmith said there is. It is the only home in the expansion…

Mrs. Duncan said your home, okay. Let me ask you this. Seeing that you now, and hindsight is always 20/20, need the Southlawn entrance/exit point, when and how was this family notified of such a significant change in what they anticipated was going to happen? How was that done? As you said, you worked to be a good neighbor. I have a degree from Aurora University. I was one of those people that was parking who knows where, wherever I could find a spot for a number of years.

Mr. Goldsmith said when it first came up and we realized we actually needed a Final Plan Amendment, the University met with the homeowner.

Mrs. Duncan said and how long ago was that?

Mr. Goldsmith said several months ago.

Mrs. Duncan said it’s been months?

Member of the audience said no, it’s been weeks.

Mrs. Duncan said I understand the overall good. I understand everybody’s points. Chairman Pilmer said I’m sorry, this isn’t a public hearing so I can’t take any testimony.

Mr. Goldsmith said just be clear, before we filed for the Final Plan amendment, we met and tried to explore the options.

Mr. Chambers said I have a question for Bob. Has there been any consideration on increasing the visibility of sight once you are coming south on Evanslawn to Prairie then to go east? Currently the college students are parking all the way up to Evanslawn. Is there any consideration of making that curb yellow further down creating a no parking for those that are turning left, which will be heading east, to prevent any accidents there?

Mr. Greene said we can certainly look at that. I don’t want to say it is a wait and see, but while the garage is being built, there are some existing parking restrictions, but we want to be sensitive to maximize the available street parking, but certainly that’s one of the things we will be looking at.

Mr. Chambers said I would suggest, or recommend, that that’s moved up highly on your consideration. I was in the area today looking at this area and I’ve been driving a long time and most of these kids, I was driving before they were born, and I almost got t-boned today making a left turn because I couldn’t see the cars coming down Prairie. So that would be something I would very much consider a recommendation of making a better viewpoint of turning east on Prairie Street.

Mr. Greene said that is duly noted and we’ll look into that.

Mr. Chambers said thank you.

Mr. Cameron said Bob, in general the parking really extends to the entrance to the Country Club. I live in that neighborhood. I usually get a chance to look at it twice a day.

Mr. Greene said I’ve seen it all the way back to Western.

Mr. Cameron said hopefully that will be gone, but maybe it needs to be encouraged.

Mr. Goldsmith said from the University’s standpoint, we’re asking for a little bit of time to see how this all works. Remember, there are 1,000 cars moving in and out daily. They are coming down Evanslawn now as you saw. They’ve been coming down Evanslawn for the last 30 years or more. We’re mindful of that, but we also want to see how this flow is going to work. Are the traffic patterns going to follow what the study showed when we looked at this a couple of years ago? It is going to be a work in progress. Obviously, we are going to be in direct communication with the city and we’ll see what needs to be done. I will say this though, there was no indication when we did the traffic study that people would use Southlawn going west as a bypass. If they are going west, they are probably going to Orchard and they are going to Prairie to get there because you can’t zoom down Southlawn. As a practical matter, Prairie only has one stop at Edgelawn before you get to the stoplight at Orchard, so it is the preferred route to get there if you are going that way. Obviously, if you are going east like you described, there is a whole bunch of stop signs, but again, Prairie is still the best way to go east.

Mr. Chambers said no doubt. I agree. I think Prairie would be beneficial. I just think that creating a better visual for those that are turning east would be beneficial, especially when you are looking at the potential volume of cars that will be coming through Southlawn that potentially could be turning east.

Mr. Goldsmith said what has happened is as more no parking has been put on one side of the streets north, south and west of the campus, more people ended up parking on Prairie and that’s why Mr. Cameron is seeing that. So when we get 500 cars off the neighborhood, I think you are going to see less parking on Prairie as well, or you may see no parking on Prairie because we’ll be able to absorb the parking on the University campus.

Mr. Chambers said I think from a safety standpoint I think it would be very beneficial for the University and the City of Aurora to definitely consider this.

Mr. Goldsmith said there will be a number of intersection considerations. There is a question of whether we’ll need a stop sign at Randall to control traffic, but because there is a new left turn lane being put in there, our Traffic Engineer says that that should function to allow people to que until they can make the left turn in to Randall to go into the garage. I totally agree with you. The University is not resistant to making accommodations and working with the city on that. We have to see how it works.

Mr. Chambers said thank you.

Chairman Pilmer said I just have a question. I think you mentioned it earlier as well, but everyone is probably looking forward to the opening of a 500 slot parking deck as we’ve heard for a number of years about parking in the neighborhood, but we also now are hearing that I guess all the special architects and engineers missed that they need now a week away from opening that they need a second opening of egress in and out. That is a public street and I understand that, but what happens if we fast forward and cars cannot get in and out of deck so students chose to park back on the streets and the deck is only being utilized at 40 percent or 50 percent capacity and we will have 200 or 300 cars on the street? How are they going to promote use of the deck versus the parking in the streets?

Mr. Goldsmith said so the University controls a larger part of the population that parks and that is staff, professors, and general employees of the University. The University is confident that looking at that group, which is hundreds of people who come to the campus, that they will be able to maximize the use of the garage. The University is not spending $10 million dollars to have a deck partially empty. Besides, the University had made a commitment to the neighborhood to make this work and whatever it takes to make it work, whether they have to make some of the students have stickers and they have to use the deck or whether we can do it by using their employees as the primary users of the deck, the University is confident it will be able to maximize the use of the deck. One thing I should note, because I wasn’t aware of this, on this Friday the north side of Prairie from Calumet to the house that we own at the middle of the block is going to be no parking, so that’s already one that’s going to be done.

Ms. Tidwell said so this wasn’t foreseen last fall. As I understand it, the ramp isn’t open yet, correct?

Mr. Goldsmith said correct.

Ms. Tidwell said how do we know now that there will be this problem when we didn’t last fall?

Mr. Goldsmith said it was not that there wasn’t a problem. We overlooked the restriction on the fence. It should have come down probably a couple of years ago.

Ms. Tidwell said so how did it come up now?

Mr. Goldsmith said while you are building a deck, you are thinking about getting it done. When it starting getting to the point where it was close to being used, we started a more detailed discussion of how are we going to manage to maximize the use and then it became obvious that we need to use Southlawn, which is a public street, and take advantage of that as an additional way of getting in and out.

Mrs. Vacek said staff would recommend approval of the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee Resolution approving a Revision to the Final Plan on Lot 1 of Aurora University 2nd Resubdivision to remove the gate across Southlawn Place to allow vehicle access entering or leaving the campus by means of Southlaw Place located at 1405 Prairie Street.

Motion of Approval was Made By: Mr. Cameron

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Reynolds

Ayes: Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Hull, Mr. Reynolds

Nays: Ms. Tidwell

Mrs. Vacek said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mr. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Reynolds, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and EconomicDevelopment Committee, on the agenda for 10/23/2019. The motion carried.

19-0829 An Ordinance Granting a Special Use Permit for a Liquor License within Five Hundred Feet of a Residential Property, for the Property located at 918 North Highland Avenue (Primos Tacos - 19-0829 / AU16/2-17.161-Su - SB - Ward 6) (Public Heaering)

Mr. Broadwell said this is a Special Use for a Class E liquor license for Primos Tacos at 918 N. Highland Avenue. We do have the owner and a representative here. So you can see some background of the property itself. I believe this used to be the Irish Club and it has been Primos Tacos for a few years. Right now they are going through the Special Use hearing. They’ve been working with the city’s Building and Permits Division to basically remodel the interior of the building so that they can comply with the municipal code standards for the Class E liquor license. They are exceeding the minimum 125 seat requirement. They have 132 seats. Because they are less than 500 feet from a residential property the Special Use is required. It is just intended to supplement the existing successful restaurant business at this location. There is a floor plan in the Legistar packet.

Ms. Tidwell said how close is the residence? I couldn’t find that information.

Mr. Broadwell said I believe there is one right across the street and a little bit to the north, certainly less than 500 feet.

Ms. Tidwell said less than 500, but 50 feet, 450?

Mr. Broadwell said I didn’t measure it and I don’t recall exactly. I would say you could see one probably less than 60 feet across.

Mr. Sieben said it looks like it would be property line to property line. I believe that’s a 66 foot right-of-way on Highland, so the northeast corner of Highland and Florida, see that ranch house, that would be the closest.

Chairman Pilmer said that’s commercial directly across the street on the other corner, correct?

Mr. Sieben said correct. The southeast corner is commercial and residences start up just one more lot to the north.

Ms. Tidwell said would granting this be consistent with prior actions in similar circumstances?

Mr. Broadway said yes, certainly.

Chairman Pilmer said is there a liquor license there now?

Mr. Broadwell said no.

Chairman Pilmer said but there had been previous?

Mr. Broadwell said yes. I think it was where the Irish Social Club used to be.

Mr. Sieben said correct. This was the Irish Club, so it had a club license and then since Mr. Martinez purchased it, I don’t believe it has had a liquor license. He is now coming in for that for a restaurant. I believe his attorney is here if there any questions.

Mr. Cameron said how long was the Irish Club there operating under a club license? It seems to me like forever.

Mr. Reynolds said back in the 50’s.

Mr. Divine said 50 years probably.

Mr. Reynolds said I remember my mom and dad going there and then I went there.

The Petitioner was sworn in.

My name is Attorney Stuart Peterson. My address is 2631 Ginger Woods Parkway in Aurora, Illinois. As you correctly stated, the primary use for that building historically in the City of Aurora was the Irish Club. It had a social club liquor license for a long time. Mr. Martinez, who is here, is under our articles for deed for contract of purchase and he only has a couple of years left until he has paid the full purchase price. He’s done some remodeling inside. He has repaved and repainted the parking lot. He does have an excess of the required number of parking spaces. He has painted outside of the building. I’ve spoken to Alderman Mike Saville. He has no objections to this proposal for the Special Use permit. This has been going on for a couple of years. We’ve had a lot or remodeling to do. We had to comply with Fox Metro and put new grease traps in. There used to be a banquet kind of reception facility in the basement. That has been removed as part of the condition of the Special Use permit. We are only going to have an establishment on the first floor. There will not be entertainment there. That is currently a family style restaurant that has not had a liquor license. They intend it remain the same with hours during the week from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and then on the weekend just extending it to midnight. If you look at the zoning planned to the immediate south of the building is some commercial that proceeds down Highland toward Illinois Avenue. Behind there is the old railroad tracks with commercial behind. There are some residents across the street and then to the north. I don’t think there have been any issues with any ordinance violations in term of noise complaints or improper operations at that facility for several years. That is his goal to keep this establishment running. He’s been successful there, but it is very difficult to run a restaurant of that nature of that size without the liquor license and continue a viable ongoing operation. I think it is the highest and best use for the property as it exists.

Mr. Elsbree said is liquor going to be allowed outside?

Mr. Peterson said no.

Mr. Elsbree said because they cook outside in the summer and the parking lot is full of picnic tables and people outside. So how are we going to restrict that?

Mr. Peterson said there will no liquor outside. At one point in time, we had proposed to have a kind of window where you could walk up and order stuff and food to go. We have removed that from the plans after discussions with the city. But there will be no liquor allowed served outside and we do have security cameras inside and out. Of course, any alcohol outside the property outside the building would be a violation of their obligation under the liquor license because we are not seeking any type of outdoor patio where people can eat and consume alcoholic beverages.

Mr. Cameron said is this a similar license as to the one we granted a year or so ago to Munos down on Prairie and Route 31?

Mr. Sieben said I believe it was, yes.

Mr. Peterson said it is a Class E restaurant license.

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. Broadwell staff would recommend approval of the Ordinance granting a Special Use Permit for a liquor license within 500 feet of a residential property for the property located at 918 N. Highland Avenue.

Motion of Approval was Made By: Ms. Tidwell

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Elsbree

Ayes: Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Hull, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Tidwell

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?

Mr. Chambers said yes and these are listed in the staff report.

2. Does the proposal represent the logical establishment and/or consistent extension of the requested classification in consideration of the existing land uses, existing zoning classifications, and essential character of the general area of the property in question?

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

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 again, 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?

Mr. Chambers said this should not have any adverse effect on the traffic.

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. Cameron said they are already in place and if not, they will be finished in accordance with the requirements.

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 there is really no change.

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

Chairman Pilmer said based upon the area in question, the Special Use should not preclude the normal and orderly development of that area.

9b. Is the special use in all other respects in conformance to the applicable regulations in 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?

Mr. Cameron said yes.

Mr. Broadwell said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Ms. Tidwell, seconded by Mr. Elsbree, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 10/23/2019. The motion carried.

19-0743 A Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Aurora Sustainability Plan to Enhance the Quality of Life for Present and Future Generations of Aurorans by Planning for Natural, Social and Economic Resilience. (City of Aurora - 19-0743 / KDWK-19.104-PZ/S - AM - All Wards) (Public Hearing).

Mr. Minnella said as you may know, the City of Aurora has a very long history that embraces sustainability long before the approval and the adoption of the 2009 Aurora Sustainability Plan, back in 2001 and then again in 2006. In 2001 the city approved the Countryside Vision Plan and in 2006 the Riverfront Vision Plan. Then to seal the sustainability culture and the sustainability consciousness, the city approved the Sustainability Plan. But now we are in 2019 and the Sustainability Plan may appear to an average reader as an outdated document that already sees some of the projects outlined in that document already accomplished or out of date. Even the language itself doesn’t speak to the present. So that’s the reason why back in 2014 the City of Aurora also implemented the Sustainable Aurora Advisory Board, a group of sustainability minded people. We have some of them representing the Advisory Board here. I would like to acknowledge them and recognize them by name; Therese Voitik, Bernina Perkins and Karan Wan. There were some other members that were not able to attend the meeting tonight; Caryl Riley, Mavis Bates, John Monsma. This group of people started working in 2014 trying to find a way to update the Sustainability Plan in such a way that the plan could be for future generations to come and still be valid. This document, as of right now, consists of two different portions. The first one is the actual Sustainability Plan composed by six different focus areas and the second portion is the projects that the City of Aurora wanted to take on back on back in 2009. Many of those projects have been accomplished. Some of those projects are very futuristic. We hope that those projects will be completed someday, but we really need to face the need for something that can speak for futures to come without really being restricted to time. We need to have a timeless document. Therefore, the group extensively researched not only regional and national, but also international best practices. They are summarized in this document that is very easy to ready. I’d like to ask the Commissioners if you had a chance to go through the document, the Sustainability Plan Update, and I would really love to hear from you a feedback and see if any of you had the same perception of a document that was easy to read, but that can be timeless because it is that guiding principle. I would like to give the members here in the audience the opportunity to speak about this plan and if you have questions we are here to answer your questions.

Mr. Cameron said maybe you can give a rundown of what the timeframe for the, I assume this has been relatively recently revised, but over what time? Has it been the last 3 years or does it go back to 2009?

Mr. Minnella said the previous plan of 2009 was approved. Over time, over the course of recent years up to 2014/2015 basically the plan was completed. Now in 2015 the group took over and tried to put in place best management practices that are the overarching goals for the City of Aurora. The Advisory Board included an additional three sections that speak to what the demand and what world-wide are considered crucial areas to focus on. I would really love to have Karen Wan, Bernina Perkins and Therese Voitik who were really behind this plan try to explain in detail every single section what those entail.

Mr. Cameron said I noticed an awful lot of crossing out. Did we end up with a document that was…

Mr. Minnella said that was my next point. You might see a bloody document, a redlined document. Now it will appear red almost entirely simply because we moved, even just moving a section might reflect in a bloody paragraph. That’s also the reason why. What you see before you tonight is not the final product. This is a very lame word document that will be dressed up by our Public Information Office. This document will then include pictures, paragraphs, graphics and so forth.

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

I’m Karen Wan. I was the person kind of in charge of pulling together all the different documents and all the research back in 2016 when we really finalized this documents and for many different reasons, we haven’t been able to get it to you until now. We worked with the Chicago Greenest Region Compact of the Mayor’s Caucus to use their plan so that now our plan is now in in sync with the regional plans that are being developed throughout the region. We took their plan. We didn’t take every single thing from their plan because some of the things just didn’t apply to Aurora and then Alex helped us to add things the city was doing that weren’t in the plan. So you’ve got some in ours that you wouldn’t find in the Chicago Greenest Region Compact, but we did add three sections. One on climate change because that was in plans around the world and we thought we needed to do that. Social environmental justice was another one, making sure that sustainability didn’t just happen for the richest of Aurorans, so that was across the city. And then resilience. We wanted to make sure that our city was prepared for whatever happens, particularly with climate change in the next 50 to 100 years. So we are trying to keep a bigger view of the future in mind. That is also why we made it simpler to read, so that as we make changes it won’t have to come here every two years and say we need to change this part because it is raw enough that it really does apply for many, many years to come.

Mr. Minnella said I simply would like to add in the PowerPoint that is part of your Legistar packet we tried to summarize as much as possible and make this pill more digestible. This slide basically highlights what the new sections are going to be in the plan, so those are highlighted in red.

Mrs. Wan said and we didn’t change the first six.

Mr. Minnella said and the other sections do not change. We simply took all the references to the past away because the goal of this Sustainability Plan Update is to make this plan timeless. That’s the reason why the many references to the past were felt not needed in this plan. Bernina is going to pass out seed bombs.

Ms. Perkins said these are homemade seed bombs. It is a seed bomb made from dirt, compost and the seeds of four perennial pollinating plants from the region. The seeds were saved and the plants were previously grown in the city this summer. These are homemade. The purpose of a seed bomb is just to throw them wherever the sun shines, preferably a field, a yard, or a vacant lot, somewhere where you would like to see color, flowers and attract pollinators. Everything will biodegrade. You don’t even have to water it. At the first rain, it will break down next year in the springtime and just start to grow.

Mr. Minnella said this is simply to signify the importance of sustainability in Aurora and around the world.

Mr. Cameron said I would only comment on the page that has proposed changes. The right side of the tree looks like most of them in Aurora after this last year.

Mrs. Duncan said I would just like to thank the Committee and all the people that worked on this. What you’ve done is put a living document together. So often we have plans that then sit on a shelf and never see the light of day, but somebody says do you have a Sustainability Plan and we say oh yes we do, but no one knows where it is or no one knows what it says. I think you have put this into great layman’s terms and I think this is certainly such a current important issue for not only our city but for our world. I do want to acknowledge that your work is greatly appreciated and the format and structure that you’ve put it in is accessible and understandable. So thank you very much.

Mr. Minnella said I would like to point out that the City of Aurora, in particular the Advisory Board and our sustainability efforts, are seen as an example and a model by the City of Naperville and their Sustainability Committee.

Ms. Tidwell said can I just say, I see that these were handmade, so whoever did that, thank you.

Mr. Deligiannis said the question is procedural. I noticed tonight that the Primos Tacos attorney and the ladies here, the Petitioners were all asked to be sworn, as I was, thank you. The Aurora University attorney was not asked to be sworn. You opened up the commentary period after the Primos Taco period for a public commentary as here for their wonderful presentation by this group. Is there any particular reason why the AU attorney was not sworn in and why after that petition it wasn’t opened up to public commentary?

Chairman Pilmer said I’ll go ahead and answer that. Depending on the legislative action need, for instance the first item on the agenda was a Final Plat and the second one was a Revision to a Final Plan. Those do not require a public hearing per the Zoning Ordinance. The last two items on the agenda were both the requirement of a public hearing, so thus when a public hearing is required, individuals that speak before the Commission have to be sworn in and then it is opened up for public comment to as many people that want to speak. There is no time limit on that and then we do close the public hearing. At the beginning of our meeting and really, I believe, every city meeting we are required to allow public comment and that is part of the Illinois Open  Meeting Act and that is limited to 3 minutes and you don’t have to be sworn in for that. Anyone can speak to the Commission or any city committee regarding really any item whether it is on the agenda or not.

Mr. Deligiannis said so you are stating that the petition by Aurora University did not require them to be sworn in?

Chairman Pilmer said correct. That’s a Final Plan and it doesn’t require for them to be sworn in. All the minutes are taken and they are on the record and part of the minutes.

Mr. Deligiannis said again these are procedural issues, just as a novice to the process asking the questions. If those are the rules then those are the rules, but appearance-wise it doesn’t combined with the previous presentation by AU. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you.

The public input portion of the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Minnella said staff would recommend approval of the Resolution approving Revisions to the City of Aurora Sustainability Plan to enhance the quality of life for present and future generations of Aurorans by planning for natural, social and economic resilience.

Motion of Approval was Made By: Mr. Chambers

Motion Seconded By: Mr. Hull

Ayes: Mr. Cameron, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Divine, Mrs. Duncan, Mr. Elsbree, Mr. Hull, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Tidwell

Nays: None

Mr. Minnella said this will next be heard at the Building, Zoning and Economic Development Committee on Wednesday, October 23, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. on the fifth floor of this building.

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Hull, that this agenda item be Forwarded to the Building, Zoning, and Economic Development Committee, on the agenda for 10/23/2019. The motion carried.

Pending

Announcements

Mr. Sieben said the next meeting is scheduled for November 6th, which is the next regular meeting.

Mr. Cameron said I would comment, at least from my belief, the comments at the public hearings are generally supposed to be for the case that’s under hearing at that time, even though you were gracious to let the person speak. I think that the one at the front end is the one where you can talk on basically any subject, but I think under the part that is of a different case, it generally to speak to that. I don’t know if I’m correct or not, but that was my understanding.

Mrs. Vacek said yes, you are correct.

Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Elsbree, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried by voice vote. Chairman Pilmer adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.

https://pipeline.locallabs.com/leads/10175128