VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
JULY 6, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mike Brackett called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
In attendance: Chairman Mike Brackett, Commissioners, Anna Tuohy, Tom Lenkart, Mark Bozik, Doug Botkin, Aaron Anderson, Scott Branson
Not in attendance: None
Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco and Community & Economic Development Director Mike Toth
Also in attendance: Kevin Drendel, Village Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Plan Commission Minutes dated June 1, 2021
Motion for approval made by Commissioner Bozik and seconded by Commissioner Lenkart. All in favor. Motion approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Petition #21-06 (Lots 1 & 2 Orchard Commons): The petitioner, Orchard Commons North Aurora LLC, requests the following actions in the B-2 General Business District, Planned Unit Development:
a) Special Use – Planned Unit Development Amendment with deviations to the Planned Unit Development, North Aurora Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance
b) Site Plan Approval
c) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
The petitioner, Ivan Nockov, stated the property currently consists of vacant land that has been partially improved with utilities. There are two (2) separate parcels, which will be subdivided into four (4) parcels. A building will be located on each of the four (4) parcels. Internal access points will be implemented into the development. Public road cuts are not necessary for the development, so traffic will not be impacted on Orchard Road during construction.
There is currently a private road that exits on Oak Street. The property also includes a private retention area behind the building for stormwater management. All water and sanitary lines are in the private right-of-way along back of the building.
The petitioner stated that all buildings will have modern finishes. Lots 3 and 4 will include a national coffee chain (Starbucks) and national fast food chain. Both locations will have a drive thru incorporated.
Currently Lot 2 has two different design options. One option includes a drive thru and straight retail. The other option will have no drive thru included. The petitioner stated that the landscaping exceeds the Village requirements. There are strict landscaping standards along Orchard Road that will be followed per Kane County’s requirements.
The design concept for Lot 1 will include masonry, canopies over windows and an overall modern aesthetic look. Lots 3 and 4 will follow the latest design concept being implemented by each national food chain.
Community & Economic Development Director Toth stated that there are three items being entertained for approval. Special Use is required due to a change in the PUD. The PUD originally called for a bank on Lot 1 and retail store on Lot 2. The applicant is also requesting approval for deviations to the PUD since the proposed signage is larger than what the PUD allows for. The proposed signage does meet the Village’s sign code. A second deviation includes reducing the drive aisles from 24’ to 22’ for Lot 3 and Lot 4. The applicant is also seeking site plan approval and preliminary final plat of subdivision approval. Since Lot 2 has two design options, there will be a total of 5 lot approvals for the site plan.
Chairman Mike Brackett opened the public hearing for public comment. No comment.
Chairman Mike Brackett closed the public hearing.
2. Petition #21-07 (840 Ice Cream Drive and the properties are generally located at the northeast corner of Randall Road and Ice Cream Drive): The petitioner, Ted Staszak, requests the following actions in the I-2 General Industrial District:
a) Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development with deviations to the Zoning Ordinance
b) Site Plan Approval
c) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
Chairman Mike Brackett opened the public hearing for public comment. No comment.
The petitioner, Tim Stuchly, introduced himself and provided a brief background on their company, Transwestern Development Company. They are a private real estate company headquartered in Houston, TX. Currently the industrial / warehouse industry has had the most activity, along with multi-family developments.
The petitioner stated that the proposed development will be a 173,000 SF warehouse. The building will consist of higher quality aesthetics, considering it will be located off of Randall Road and will be visible in a high traffic area. Landscaping will consist of heavier trees on the west side of the building, which has a 50’ setback. The building will consist of higher end glass and winged walls to give dimension. There will possibly be two (2) tenants in the warehouse.
The north elevation will consist of the truck docks. The proposed warehouse will not be a heavy distribution center and will consist of 20 door stalls on the north elevation. The facility is designed for more traffic if needed. The truck traffic will come off of Ice Cream Drive and to the east side of the building. Additional trailer parking was incorporated due to heavier demand. Auto parking is proposed in the front of the building by the primary entrance. At the northwest corner, there is a “right-in, right-out” to Randall Road. This keeps the traffic flow going northbound on Randall Road. A traffic study was completed for the development and it showed there would be light traffic from the warehouse. The preliminary final plat of subdivision shows three different lots. Lot 1 will be used for the warehouse. Lot 2 is being reserved for the owner for a future project, and Lot 3 will consist of a shared detention facility.
The petitioner stated that the tenants for the warehouse will primarily be light manufacturing. This could potentially bring about 50 – 100 new jobs. The site will have more than enough parking to accommodate for all future employees.
Toth stated they are creating a PUD for the development. The property is located in the I-2 District. Any use is subject to a permitted use in the I-2 District. He stated that a future tenant could possibly request a special use down the road. The applicant is requesting a 0 setback line at the eastern edge of Lot 2. They will still need to meet the front and rear setback requirements. The proposed building meets code for building height, parking, etc. Staff is recommending approval with 11 conditions.
Chairman Mike Brackett closed the public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Petition #21-06 (Lots 1 & 2 Orchard Commons): The petitioner, Orchard Commons North Aurora LLC, requests the following actions in the B-2 General Business District, Planned Unit Development:
d) Special Use – Planned Unit Development Amendment with deviations to the Planned Unit Development, North Aurora Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance
e) Site Plan Approval
f) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
Commissioner Tuohy asked if there will be a separate request for signage off of Orchard Road. Toth responded that the signage on the building is governed by the Village’s sign ordinance. The PUD only speaks to the free standing signs. The applicant is below the sign ordinance standard, but the signage on Madison Street needs to meet the PUD standard, which is one of the conditions for approval. Tuohy asked if the back of the parking lot will be open. The petitioner responded that the buildings are all connected. Toth stated that a cross access will be required due to shared parking. Tuohy asked if there was interest in the other two lots. The petitioner responded yes but nothing has been officially signed yet.
Commissioner Anderson asked about the drive aisle widths for Lot 3 and Lot 4. He stated that he didn’t recall this being a request in the past and it does cause him some concern if it could be too narrow. Toth responded that he did not recall a similar request in the past, but that does not mean it did not come up before. Many of the decisions made during the planning process for the national chains are handled by their corporate office. The petitioner stated that Starbucks has a bypass lane, which is a corporate standard now. They have changed their business model especially with COVID-19. Toth responded that when Starbucks enlarged the bypass lane, it pushed everything to the south. The aisle width was 24’ at one point, but when additional space was needed, everything had to be pushed south. Anderson asked if there are ways to keep the 24’ width. The petitioner responded they achieved it for the south properties, but with the north parcels they cannot. He stated that they see 22’ aisles everywhere, which is becoming the norm for developments.
Commissioner Lenkart stated he had the same concern about the drive aisle widths since it could be a challenge. Toth responded that they did discuss angled parking, but they have not seen that at any other locations. Lenkart asked if staff is considering the signage from a sign ordinance or PUD perspective. Toth responded that the signage on Madison Street will have to be per the PUD. Lenkart asked if that included the pedestal. Toth responded that the pedestal is 3’ in height with an 8’ panel for a total of 11’ tall. The permitted height per code is 20’. Toth stated that they want the businesses to be visible from the street. Lenkart asked if there was a picture as to where the sidewalks will go. Toth responded that there is a carriage walk on the west side of Madison Street. A bike path will go on the south portion of Lot 1 to connect to the walkway on the west side of Madison Street. Lenkart stated that he is concerned with the trees / plants that could potentially grow too high and block traffic. The petitioner responded that they can address that.
Commissioner Branson stated that he was in agreement with the drive aisle concerns. He stated that he was also concerned with the new retail coming in since there are many vacant buildings in the area. The petitioner responded that most of their tenants are national and they are getting a lot of traffic regarding the site.
Commissioner Bozik stated he was comfortable with the signage. He is concerned about the elevations facing Madison Street & Orchard Road. The building on Lot 4 is not very appealing and he suggests keeping the appeal of Hardware. By doing so, it would keep a consistent appearance coming up and down Orchard Road. Bozik suggested that the developer move the roof access to inside of the building and to implement more architectural improvements so that it is appealing from Orchard Road as well. The parapet walls should be high enough to hide rooftop units.
Commissioner Botkin stated that he agrees with the drive aisle concerns and is fine with the proposed signage deviations. He stated he had no other questions.
Tuohy stated that there is a lot of traffic on Deerpath, especially at the large intersection heading north. She suggested that something should be done with that particular intersection. Village Administrator Bosco stated that the intersection she is referring to is governed by Kane County.
Chairman Brackett stated that he agrees with the drive aisle concern. The petitioner responded that he would look further into the drive aisle widths. They have looked at it extensively but they will look at it some more. Toth responded that staff will work with developer to try and get close to 24’ width.
The petitioner stated they wanted to have more landscaping along Orchard Road but are not allowed to due to county requirements.
Toth stated the developer is required to screen exterior elements, such as RTUs.
Motion for approval of a Special Use for a Planned Unit Development Amendment with deviations to the Planned Unit Development and North Aurora Zoning Ordinance with staff’s six conditions and the added conditions that only low growth vegetation be used adjacent to the property entrances along Madison Street and that architectural enhancements be made to the east elevation of each building was made by Commissioner Lenkart and seconded by Commissioner Bozik. Vote: Lenkart – Yes, Bozik – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Branson – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
Motion for approval of the site plans included on ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ was made by Commissioner Bozik and seconded by Commissioner Botkin. Vote: Bozik – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Branson – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Lenkart – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
Motion for approval of the Orchard Acres Final Plat of Subdivision was made by Commissioner Lenkart and seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Vote: Lenkart – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Bozik – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Branson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
2. Petition #21-07 (840 Ice Cream Drive and the properties are generally located at the northeast corner of Randall Road and Ice Cream Drive): The petitioner, Ted Staszak, requests the following actions in the I-2 General Industrial District:
d) Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development with deviations to the Zoning Ordinance
e) Site Plan Approval
f) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
Botkin stated that the concept looked good to him. The traffic that comes from the west will likely come off Orchard Road and I-88. Botkin asked since this warehouse is in-between the other larger industrial development going in, will there be more trucks going down Oak Street. That is his only concern.
Bozik asked if the eastern access has a shared access with Lot 2. Toth responded that there already is shared access. Bozik asked what the distance is between the existing building and proposed driveway on Lot 2. He stated that for Lot 2, access should come off of the access drive and should be included in the PUD. Toth responded that he agrees. Bozik asked if there was any discussion regarding cross access in order to tie into the existing parking lot. If the developer wants access off of Ice Cream Drive, they should combine with the current access to the existing lot. In regards to the traffic going northbound on Randall, there should be a right hand turn lane or deceleration lane onto Ice Cream Drive.
Branson asked what the distance is between the Ice Cream Drive access and Randall Road. The petitioner responded that it is 545’.
Lenkart asked if the traffic light can be adjusted at Ice Cream Drive and Randall Road to accommodate for higher traffic times. Bosco responded that the Village has an agreement with Kane County regarding traffic light coordination along Randall Road. Lenkart asked if Lot 2 is owned by Oberweis. The petitioner responded yes. He asked if there are any other 0 lot line properties. Toth responded not that he was aware of. He stated that the PUD offers flexibility by design, which is what the applicant is asking for in regards to Lot 2. Lenkart stated that he is concerned they will get what they want without accommodating to Village’s needs down the road. He stated that he is not comfortable with the 0 lot line. Toth responded and asked what the 0 lot line could possibly affect in the surrounding areas. Lenkart stated that more trailer space was added and asked if it should be reviewed again by IDNR due to the wetland area. Originally the development was not going to have an effect on the wetlands, but now more trailer space was added. He suggested that the trees along the northern lot line should be pine or arbor vitae.
Anderson asked if they will fence in the trailer area. The petitioner responded not at this point. Anderson stated that he is concerned about the height of the proposed plants. He stated that they should be tall enough to screen the building. He stated that he also shares concerns about the turn lane.
Tuohy stated that the north side of the building should be screened with landscaping. She also stated that the turn lane is a big concern.
Brackett stated that the turn lane concern should be added as a condition. Toth stated that staff will work with the applicant and engineer to determine the most affective screening.
Toth stated that a site plan will need to come back through the Plan Commission and Village Board when a building is proposed on Lot 2. Lenkart stated the commission never says no so he is concerned that the 0 setback will be an issue down the road.
Bosco asked for clarification on the deceleration and right turn lane. The commission confirmed that they are referring to the right turn lane off Randall Road onto Ice Cream Drive.
Motion for approval of a Special Use to allow a Planned Unit Development with deviations to the North Aurora Zoning Ordinance with staff’s 11 conditions and the added conditions that a deceleration lane be added to the south of the Randall Road entrance to the property, confirmation from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources that the added trailer parking spaces will not have any adverse effects on any identified protected resources and the ability to add berming to the north of the trailer parking stalls be evaluated was made by Commissioner Bozik and seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Vote: Bozik – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Branson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Lenkart – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
Motion for approval of the site plan was made by Commissioner Bozik and seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Vote: Bozik – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Branson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Lenkart – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
Motion for approval of the Oberweis Dairy Final Plat of Resubdivision was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Bozik. Vote: Anderson – Yes, Bozik – Yes, Botkin – Yes, Lenkart – Yes, Branson – Yes, Tuohy – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
OLD BUSINESS – None
PLAN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND PROJECT UPDATES
Toth stated that the sunroom variation was approved by Village Board. The Plan Commission will meet on Tuesday, August 3 for Casey’s at Randall Square. An apartment development may be proposed sometime in the fall.
Fortunato is currently being reviewed by our consultants.
Run-A-Way received a fire restoration permit and the work is in progress.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Lenkart and seconded by Commissioner Bozik. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jessi Watkins
Village Clerk
