City of Aurora PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2012 The Aurora Planning Commission met in a regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, in Council Chambers of Aurora City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Planning Commission Chairman Maria Hydell. ROLL CALL: Present: Kathi Grandillo Maria Hydell Joe Kastelic Roy Shafer Ken Grohe Absent: Also Present: Thomas Reitz, Law Advisor Richard Wehrenberg, Planning, Zoning & Building Director Carl Rausch, Councilman, Ward 3 Justin Czekaj, City Engineer Denise Januska, City Planner Corinne Craine, Commission Clerk Mr. Reitz swore in those in attendance who wished to speak this evening. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: MOTION: To approve the meeting agenda of April 18, 2012, as written Mrs. Grandillo moved; Mr. Shafer seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mrs. Grandillo, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Kastelic, Mrs. Hydell Nays: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: To approve the meeting minutes of April 4, 2012, as submitted Mr. Kastelic moved; Mrs. Grandillo seconded, and the motion carried, 4-0, on a roll call vote. Yeas: Mr. Kastelic, Mrs. Grandillo, Mr. Shafer, Mrs. Hydell Nays: None
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 2 AGENDA ITEMS: Hawthorn of Aurora, Madison Avenue & Joseph Drive Wetland Setback Variance (1203005) The property owner, Mark Constantino, and the project engineers, Ken Hejduk and Jason Kekic of Hejduk-Cox & Associates, were present for the discussion. The applicant is seeking a 35-foot wetland setback variance for a proposed detention basin behind lot 237 in Hawthorn Phase 4B. The proposed site is located off of Madison Avenue in the Hawthorn subdivision which is a PD (planned development) district. Mrs. Hydell thanked Mr. Hejduk for submitting a revised map dated April 12, 2012. She then asked for an update on the revisions. Mr. Hejduk stated that the revised map has some additional information showing where the 75 wetland setback is located and how it impacts the proposed basin and lots 238 and 239. He thought that this new map was more helpful because it now shows both the 75 setback and the proposed 40 setback. He pointed out that the 40 setback is a distance set by the Army Corps of Engineers when the permit was issued. Mrs. Hydell stated that the Hawthorn subdivision was a project that started about 25 years ago and last year the Planning Commission approved a revised development plan. She wanted to know whether or not the detention basin was part of the original development plan. Mr. Hejduk explained that the original development plan was done in 1988 and when Phase 1 was started, they were not required to put in detention/retention basins. He pointed out that Phase 4B was originally approved for both single family sites and cluster sites for condos and now the revised plan shows only single family sites. Mr. Hejduk stated that basically the revised Phase 4B plan decreases the number of homes, increases the amount of open space, and provides for retention/detention that meets the code. Referring to the revised map, Mrs. Hydell said that the required 75 setback affects not only the basin and lots 238/239, but also some existing Phase 1 lots on Valley View Circle. She commented that with either setback, the required 75 or the proposed 40, the property owners are actually prohibited from constructing anything within the wetland setback area. Mr. Wehrenberg said that was correct and Section 1157.04(b) of the zoning code has a list of activities that are prohibited within the wetland setback area. It was noted that anyone who purchases lots 238 and 239 would be made aware of these prohibited activities because it is on the plat and also in the homeowner covenants. Mr. Reitz wanted to know whether or not the variance request included Phase 1 lots 19, 20 and 21. Mr. Hejduk said that the applicant does not own that property, therefore, they are not part of the request.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 3 Mrs. Hydell started a discussion about the conditions listed in Section 1157.07 and how the proposed project satisfies these conditions. Mr. Kekic explained that the potential harm to the wetland is minimal because the proposed 40 setback is a distance that the Army Corps of Engineers is comfortable with in terms of protecting the wetland. He stated that the location of the proposed basin is necessary due to the rolling nature of the land in that area. He said the basin can t go up the hill because the sewers won t reach it and it can t go at the bottom because it would be in the stream. Mrs. Hydell asked Mr. Czekaj for his comments about the basin location. Mr. Czekaj stated that the engineers have done their due diligence to meet our code and it does appear to be the best location. Mrs. Hydell then asked for audience comments or questions. Tony Palmer, 780 Valley View Circle, stated that he had walked the property several times and he thought that the basin could be moved or reshaped in order to comply with the 75 setback requirement. He believed that there were more options that could be explored. Richard Shoemaker, 770 Valley View Circle, read a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from Mr. Holtzman who resides at 750 Valley View Circle. In his letter, Mr. Holtzman gave his reasons for opposing the variance request. Mr. Shoemaker also opposed the request because the developer has known for many years about the wetland requirements and he could easily change the location of the basin. Richard Bush, 755 Valley View Circle, said that if the detention basin is the real issue for the hardship, then the variance request should just deal with the basin and not lots 238 and 239. Jim Hanson, 810 Rock Creek Drive, had concerns about the storm water draining into Aurora Lake. Also, he thought that other locations for the basin should be explored. Mike Cohn, 806 Rock Creek Drive, believed that there are other locations for the basin. He suggested that the proposed basin location is actually designed so the developer can maximize the number of lots available for construction. Carl Rausch, Councilman, Ward 3, stated that when the residents purchased their homes on Valley View and Rock Creek, they were not aware of any plans for a future basin and the impact that it would have on their property. He believed that the developer should listen to the concerns of these residents and explore different alternatives for the location of the basin. George Mazzaro, 186 Eldridge Road, stated that there are other options that need to be explored. He also wanted to know whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers permit is current.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 4 The developer, Mark Constantino, stated that the Phase 1 residents were not aware of the proposed basin when they purchased their properties because the original development plan did not show any basins. He explained that there were no code requirements for retention or detention basins back in 1988. Mr. Constantino said that they are just trying to follow the codes. He pointed out that the code requires that the storm water stay on the site and the proposed plan meets those regulations. Richard Bush, 755 Valley View Circle, stated that where the wetland setback exists now is simply a hardship for the developer that he could have planned around and his failure to do so should not be a burden on the existing homeowners. Mrs. Hydell said we have all heard the concerns of the residents tonight and she wondered if there was a way to limit the variance request to just the area affected by the basin and not to include lots 238 and 239. Additionally, Mr. Shafer wanted to know whether or not the basin can be changed so it doesn t impact the 75 wetland setback area. Mr. Hejduk agreed to take another look at the proposal and to provide answers to those questions for the next meeting on May 2 nd. Ritee, LLC (RoviSys Company), Campus Drive Preliminary & Final Site Plan (Industrial Bldg.) (1203004) Mike Curtis of Curtis Layer Design/Build Inc., 340 Harris Drive, was present to answer questions. He is seeking site plan approval for the construction of a new building on Campus Drive which is in an I-1 (manufacturing, processing and wholesaling) district. Mr. Curtis stated that he is hoping for approval tonight of the preliminary and final site plans because RoviSys needs the new facility for the expansion of their software division. Mrs. Hydell said that when the Planning Commission accepted this for study at the last meeting, the plans still needed engineering approval. She then asked for an update. Mr. Czekaj stated that he just received some additional information yesterday so the engineering review has not been completed yet. He thought that he had all the necessary information and now it is just a matter of completing the review. Mrs. Hydell hoped that the engineering review will be completed so the Planning Commission can take action at the next meeting on May 2 nd. MISCELLANEOUS: Mr. Wehrenberg gave a brief update on the Master Plan. He stated that information is still being gathered from focus group meetings. The information will then be presented at the Public Workshop which will be held on May 15 th, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., in the Walker Building. He said everyone is invited and it is a good opportunity for the residents to give their input on the future goals and objectives for the City of Aurora.
MEETING MINUTES PAGE 5 ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Kastelic moved to adjourn at 7:59 p.m.; Mr. Shafer seconded, and the motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. Maria Hydell, Chairman Corinne Craine, Clerk