VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
Village President John Hansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
In attendance: Village President John Hansen, Trustees Paul Shoemaker, Dale Berman, Linda Mitchell, Mike Herlihy, Max Herwig. Not in attendance: Trustee Mark Gaffino.
Staff in attendance: Sue McLaughlin, Atty. Kevin Drendel, Bill Hannah, DeWayne Williams, Jim Bibby, Mike Glock and Tom Fetzer.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
PUBLIC HEARING – Pre-Annexation of Orchard Commons (northwest corner of Orchard/Oak)
Village President Hansen opened the public hearing. Sue McLaughlin and Atty. Drendel noted the changes that were made since the last meeting. McLaughlin noted that the word “double” was deleted in Use “O” of the PUD’s use list. Atty. Drendel said it referred to pharmacy and drive-thru lanes. McLaughlin said that the last sentence in paragraph 16 referred to preliminary plan instead of exhibit D. Atty. Drendel mentioned that Exhibit D (lighting plan) was taken out because the lighting plan is now incorporated into the preliminary engineering. Atty. Drendel said that paragraph 6a specified underground utilities that the Village would be taking as opposed to all easements. Paragraph 6d should reference a 10-inch sewer line and not a 12-inch sewer line. DeWayne Williams informed the Board that ComEd is coming back to the Village on the Autumn Ridge subdivision and requesting an exclusive easement for the installation of their service. Williams suggested leaving that portion of the agreement in limbo in case ComEd comes back requesting an exclusive. If ComEd does request this, there will need to be another easement so that the Village can get into the area along with the phone company. Williams said that Staff is meeting with ComEd later this week. Until such time as an exclusive is signed, ComEd will not provide service to the subdivision. McLaughlin said that one other change which was not delineated referred to financial institutions (page 19 of the PUD). Trustee Mitchell asked if this is in direct conflict with the ordinance that was just passed. McLaughlin said two things have happened since the passing of the ordinance. Staff met with KDOT and due to the parcel being a very skinny piece, 250 feet is impossible to comply with. McLaughlin added that even if the Village wanted the financial institution off of the hard corner, IDOT’s regulation for the throat off of Oak Street is usually 250 feet. A variance is already being granted for 125 feet. Mitchell suggested planning something other than a bank on the property. Trustee Herlihy said that if the zoning revision precludes a bank occurring in a particular development, it precludes it. Trustee Berman agreed.
Mr. Sorrentino said that the bank is the highest and best use for this corner/development. The ordinance proposed by Sorrentino and worked out with Staff was to have a one-time fee of $50,000 to help offset the potential retail in the event that a financial institution is placed on the corner of the development. Village President Hansen noted his concern of vacant strip malls and does not want to see this happen in North Aurora. Trustee Herwig asked, if the Village passes the pre-annexation agreement, if it includes the ordinance granting a special use as part of the approval. Atty. Drendel said the ordinance would be passed at the time it is annexed. Herwig said the Village is not passing the special use and anything that is in the special use ordinance can be discussed later. Atty. Drendel said the Village would be locking it in with the annexation agreement, but could not pass that until it is annexed. Herwig said he was concerned with some of the items such as restaurant and/or lounge. Mr. Sorrentino said that there are some trendy upscale martini bars that are coming into the market and asked the Board if that would be an appropriate use for the center. Trustee Herlihy’s concern was the business in 5 or 10 years. Trustee Herwig said the Village can control the business that goes in by controlling the liquor license. Herlihy asked about the definition of “lounge”. Atty. Drendel said he had expressed concern about the word “lounge” because the Village does not have a liquor category for this type of business. The highest liquor category the Village currently has is an A category, which is for a restaurant that sells alcohol. As far as control, the Board never has any more licenses than are issued. The only exception is when a business changes hands; there is still a liquor license which can be reissued.
Trustee Berman said the Board would not approve anything that does not fall within the liquor license guidelines and therefore could not approve a lounge if a lounge is not in the liquor license. Herlihy said that the zoning classifications do not address non-restaurant drinking establishments. In the pre-annexation agreement the Village is being asked to permit something the Village does not otherwise permit in the B1/B2 district. Herwig asked if the Board should approve with the “lounge” wording and if there is a case where someone wants to have a high-end lounge it would be brought before the Board and accepted or rejected. Atty. Drendel said this provides for good control since the Village would have to create a new category to allow the lounge. Herwig said he was willing to leave the wording in and have the controls under the liquor license. Herlihy said the Board is not being asked to approve it as a special use, rather a permanent use. The Board would not review it except for accepting or denying a liquor license. Herwig said his concern is to have some control on this in the future. Herlihy said the Village will someday argue a property right vs. a liquor license right and the Village is specifically granting a property right. The Board agreed to keep the wording as is.
Sorrentino said that in terms of the bank, the Village’s concern is a lack of retail dollars. Sorrentino stated that banks want to be at very specific locations that are high energy locations. Sorrentino said banks are good neighbors, contribute to the community, build beautiful buildings and pay real estate taxes. Herlihy said his concern is that a bank on the corner would push the retail activity away from the corner. Berman and Herlihy said that another function would do better on the corner.
Atty. Frandsen said the wording in the agreement is a variation to recognize some of the site conditions. The issue is that there are four roads around the property and prohibits the distance restriction. It also eliminates the issue of a back side and all sides of the property are visible. Frandsen noted that this a very unique piece of property, surrounded by four significant roadways.
Atty. Frandsen mentioned that the applications and draft agreements are on file and that the developer is seeking annexation of the pre-annexation/annexation contiguous approval of the preliminary plan. Preliminary plan is defined by a series of drawings that have been presented in detail to the Plan Commission. Those transcripts were submitted to the record of this meeting.
Sorrentino noted some of the infrastructure costs: widening of both sides of Deerpath Road, all of Tanner Road extended, installation of a full median, improvements of a right turn lane off of Oak Street and 1400 lineal feet of offsite sanitary sewer to be brought in from the west. Atty. Frandsen said the offsite sanitary will also be available for the site to the north.
Trustee Mitchell asked for further Staff input regarding the project. McLaughlin said that this piece of property was a hard decision whether to allow or not allow a non-retail user for the corner, but the sales tax formula was a way to suggest some loss to the Village for giving up the hard corner. McLaughlin said that Staff talked about Plan Commission’s concern about the northwest corner and retail being so close to residential. McLaughlin said that when Deerpath Road is realigned, the land across from Deerpath will be a skinny commercial strip. The only house is northwest of that. Residential is not across the street, but appears that way on the comp plan. Williams said that if the Village wants to stay with the 250 foot requirement, there would not be a single piece of property on the parcel that would meet the requirement. Williams said that Staff also discussed a restaurant and that there will be language in the agreements that will permit for some kind of decking that may go off on the south side and may encroach over part of the water area. Williams said Staff did not give Sorrentino any indication that they could have a bank but that it would be the Board’s decision. Trustee Herlihy said that at the last meeting he mentioned his concern about granting the property right of constructing the deck over the pond. After reviewing the plans, the building is on a different lot that would have a deck over a retention pond. Herlihy said he was hesitant to grant the property right for a building on one piece of property to encroach over another piece of property. Atty. Drendel said the Village would be giving a variance to allow encroachment into the side yard. The property right has to be between the owners. Herlihy asked why the Village is granting a property right in the PUD. Atty. Drendel said the Village can not grant a property right. Atty. Frandsen said there will be a subdivision declaration with covenants and grants of easements. This would be another easement granted over a portion of the detention area for the benefit of a lot. Williams explained that the developer is asking for a side yard variance. The Village’s zoning ordinance only permits a deck on a rear yard. It is anticipated that the building will face east and therefore the rear of the building will face west. Herlihy said he is concerned, under pre-annexation agreement, the ability to get into mass grading and some activity without the actual annexation being completed. Herlihy added that he does not believe the Village has provisions to enforce the building codes under the pre-annexation agreement since it is not the Village’s jurisdiction. Atty. Drendel said the collar counties have no authority over property that is not contiguous. Herlihy said that one of the requested permitted uses is auto sales, new or used. Herlihy was concerned by the size of lots and whether they would be suitable for an auto sales lot. Herlihy said he would like to see signs per the sign ordinance. In terms of the recapture mechanics, sanitary sewer extension west of Deerpath Road is being applied to Parcel A & B. Herlihy asked if that is not also feeding Parcel C & D. Atty. Frandsen said they do not get served by the same sanitary line. Herlihy asked about item b, recapture for sanitary sewer extension across Deerpath right-of-way and wanting to charge Parcel B 77% of that. Frandsen said that is based on the acreage that leads into the extension. Frandsen noted that this was per the Village engineer. Herlihy asked if the Orchard Road improvement would be the median strip. Herlihy then asked how the Village would be certain that it benefits parcel c & d at this point if the geometry of C & D or traffic impact of C & D is not known. Bibby said the extension of the median and completion and closure of the project creates potential restricted access points, Tanner Road extended and a right-in/right-out on the east side of Orchard Road. Both cases provide the critical secondary access for this project. Herlihy said that the west side right-in/right-out does not benefit Lots C & D. Bibby said Orchard Road improvements extension is necessary and will create the right-in/right-out as far as the apron opening from the arterial roadway. Herlihy said this project will construct the right-in/right-out on the east side of the road. Bibby said yes. Atty. Frandsen said the project is not constructing the right-in/right-out on the east side. Bibby said the engineering plans show the improvements on the east side are to be constructed with this proposed project.
Trustee Herwig requested a fee schedule. Atty. Drendel said he would email the schedule to the Board. Trustee Berman said that Sorrentino has done a fantastic job of investing in North Aurora and had no problems with the plan except for the financial institution issue. Trustee Shoemaker voiced his opinion regarding no financial institution. Herwig said he was not against a financial institution due to the nature of the property, but if the majority of the Board wants to omit the banks, would go along with the Board. Herlihy said he was not sold either way on the banks. Herlihy added that given the concept, he was considering the possibility. Trustee Mitchell agreed that this is a unique piece of property and would vote with the majority of the Board, but would like to see marketing try and draw something else in the location instead of a bank. Herwig asked if the property could be limited to one bank. Sorrentino said yes. Atty. Frandsen mentioned that the variation request is only for one lot. New Business.
1.
