VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 1, 2022
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mike Brackett called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
In attendance: Chairman Mike Brackett, Commissioners, Anna Tuohy, Aaron Anderson, Scott Branson, Alexander Negro, Richard Newell, and Doug Botkin
Not in attendance: Mark Bozik and Tom Lenkart
Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco, Community & Economic Development Director Mike Toth and Planner David Hansen
Also in attendance: Kevin Drendel, Village Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Plan Commission Minutes dated February 1, 2022
Motion for approval made by Commissioner Newell and seconded by Commissioner Branson. All in favor. Motion approved.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Petition #22-02: The petitioner, Fiduciary Real Estate Development, Inc., requests the following actions in the R-4 General Residence District, Planned Unit Development for the vacant tract of land situated west of Orchard Road, south of West Mooseheart Road and east of Deerpath Road:
a) Special Use – Planned Unit Development Amendment with deviations to the Planned Unit Development and Zoning Ordinance
b) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
c) Site Plan Approval
Chairman Mike Brackett called the public hearing to order.
Chairman Brackett explained Mike Toth will introduce the petition, which will be followed by the petitioner’s presentation and public comments. The Plan Commission will then close the public hearing and discuss the petition amongst Commissioner’s and ask any questions they may have.
Mike Toth introduced Petition #22-02, which is a 21.7 acre tract of land located east of Deerpath Rd, south of West Mooseheart Rd, and north of Orchard Rd. The developer will give a presentation and provide background on the project itself and then the Village will give their presentation and explain the developer’s request in more detail.
The petitioner, Tony DeRosa (Vice President for Fiduciary Real Estate Development, Inc.) presented their Seasons at North Aurora project. DeRosa gave a brief overview on the company, which is based out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DeRosa mentioned mixed-use and luxury multi-family products are their specialty and have developed and owned up to 11,000 apartments in their history. DeRosa shared some completed projects that are similar to the Seasons at North Aurora concept, which included their first Seasons development, Seasons at Randall Road in West Dundee, which was completed a few years ago. That development was two phases, which consisted of 380 total apartments. DeRosa showed pictures of the completed project’s clubhouse, interior finishes, and overall site. DeRosa mentioned his other team members are here tonight include David Ferrell and Ashley Poull. AG Architecture is their design company and Manhard Consulting Engineering is their civil engineering firm.
DeRosa presented their Seasons at North Aurora concept in greater detail, which includes 260 apartment units (26 studio, 104 one bedroom, 104 two bedroom, and 26 three bedroom units). DeRosa mentioned it was a 21.7 acre site and the current zoning is R-4 General Residence District and the proposed multi-family development is a permitted use with a density of about 12 units per acre. DeRosa mentioned there is Connector Road that divides the two sites and the road is about $1 million to build and Fiduciary will be building it as part of the site development. Parcels to the south of the connector road are zoned B-2 General Business District for future commercial, but are not part of this development. DeRosa stated the area’s apartment occupancy is around 95% and there is a lack of newer multi-family housing in North Aurora. DeRosa added North Aurora has older rental housing stock, lack modern amenities and this development will target all age groups. Apartment prices would be $1,400 (studio) to $2,700 (3 bedroom). The development will have a condo and townhome type feel with garages and private entry’s, maintenance free living with attached/detached garages, oversized windows, balconies, open concept floor plans, walk in closets, in unit washer/dryer and stainless steel appliances. It will also have a clubhouse, walkability connections throughout the site and on-site management team. DeRosa showed images of the proposed development, which included the clubhouse, outdoor areas, interior gathering areas, and exterior elevations. DeRosa mentioned the east-west connector road would divide the 40 acres of parcels with multi-family permitted on north side and commercial on both ends and the first developer to build on site must build the connector road. DeRosa added the parking screened to interior of development, there is a landscape buffer around perimeter, stormwater features on north side of development, trail/sidewalk connections throughout the site. Parking will be assigned by unit for both garages and exterior parking spaces. DeRosa showed a two-minute fly through 3-D presentation of what the site would look like.
DeRosa outlined the PUD Ordinance development standards for apartment uses for the site, which included the following: building height be limited to three stories (development is two stories), apartments unit have individual access from exterior (each unit will have individual access from the exterior of the building), one parking space provided for each dwelling unit in an interior enclosed area (66% enclosed parking spaces per unit a total of 172 spaces); at least 25% of each apartment building covered in masonry (25.8% will be covered), and architectural monotony standards must be met ( DeRosa mentioned cement siding, big windows, and lots of design to avoid monotony on the exterior). DeRosa shared some conclusions from preliminary traffic study, which included the development would not have a detrimental impact. Some traffic study details included Orchard Rd is estimated to increase 8% per day (60% of it would use Orchard to the south via the connector road that comes out to .73 trips per minute). Deerpath Rd traffic would increase 3% trips increase per day (15% of the traffic is estimated to go south on Deerpath Rd, which is about .18 trips per minute). DeRosa added current conditions as well as improvements as part of the development will help mitigate congestion and commercial development would have more traffic impact than residential one. DeRosa said Fiduciary is working with Kane County Department of Transportation on traffic improvements for Orchard Rd, which would include a southbound deceleration lane on Orchard Rd into the connector road and a dedicated northbound left turn lane into the connector road DeRosa showed the elevations for the clubhouse, floorplans and building exterior contrast. DeRosa added the current tax bill is around $600 tax bill, but would increase to about $800,000 a year after the development is completed. DeRosa continued and said this would help retailers in area that are struggling, that the development will hopefully be a catalyst to help commercial develop to the south in the future and that the development is highest and best use of property according to our research.
Mike Toth presented slides regarding the Village’s codes, zoning designation, the current PUD, and the Annexation Agreement for the property. In 2012, the property was annexed and a PUD ordinance was approved, which established the B-2 General Business District for the properties north and south of the connector road area with area north of connector road having an R-4 General Residence District zoning designation which allows multi-family as a permitted use. The PUD established standards in 2012 and was amended in 2013 which had a few changes. One change was, in the 2012 PUD, both interior and exterior access was required, but the 2013 PUD only requires exterior access which the development is providing. Another change is that the 2012 PUD ordinance required 20% of the total units must include an interior enclosed parking space, while 2013 PUD ordinance requires 100% of parking spaces (260 spaces) would need to be provided interior enclosed parking.
Toth stated, if the site plan met all requirements of the PUD and Annexation Agreement, the site plan would only need to be submitted to the Plan Commission for review and could have been forwarded to the Village Board for approval without a need for a public hearing. Toth elaborated and said site plan reviews are required for any development to go to the Plan Commission for review and Village Board for approval. However in this PUD ordinance, once anyone submitted a site plan for the property it would come to the Plan Commission for review and developer would only be required to send notice to the adjacent property owners. No signs or newspaper listings would have been required if this would have happened. Site plan approval standards are included in the annexation agreement instead of the PUD, which means Village Board has final say over the site development standards. He added they are included in staff report for guidance tonight on Page 5. Another approval to be considered is the establishment of Lot 1 of Seasons at North Aurora subdivision and preliminary plat that has been submitted.
Toth explained the reason why the public hearing was triggered, signs on the property and letters sent to property owners, etc. were because of Planned Unit Development and Zoning Ordinance amendments. First, the enclosed parking spaces deviation. They are providing 172 enclosed parking spaces, but they need 260 enclosed spaces to avoid it. More garages on property could be a negative due to storage component. Second, is the plan submittal process deviation. As long as the plan being submitted for permit review matches the plans approved by the Village Board they do not need to go through the final review process. Third, the landscape buffer along Orchard Road. Kane County requires 170 feet of ROW and has jurisdiction for the Road. Upon review, Kane County requires another 15 feet into the buffer yard so the landscape buffer has been reduced to 35 feet instead of 50 feet allowable by code. This has been customary since the Orchard Acres development to the south of this proposed development, on northwest part of Oak St and Orchard Rd., also had same thing happen – the 50 foot buffer was reduced to a 35 feet setback. Given those deviations, staff has reviewed the site plan and is recommending approval with eight conditions upon approval, which are listed on the last page of the staff report.
Chairman Mike Brackett opened the public hearing for public comment. Chairman Brackett mentioned no one signed up on the sheet, but anyone who would like to speak is free to do so in an orderly manner.
Ann Snodgrass (1525 W. Mooseheart Rd.) had a few questions regarding how long the plan been under consideration, what is the time frame for the development, any traffic studies on Mooseheart Rd towards White Oak Dr, how will this impact the schools, and will a left turn be allowed on Orchard Rd. Toth mentioned the Village has been in contact with the Village for months and have a had a few meetings about the project both internal and external and the plan tonight was first seen about a month ago. Toth said the next step is to send it to the Village Board for further discussion with final consideration coming in April or May. It would then have to go through permitting process if approved before site work could begin. DeRosa said the construction target date is mid to late summer with 20 months start to finish with the first building completed in 10 months and one building finished every 30 days after commencement of construction. DeRosa said roughly 10 school age kids per 100 units is about the average they see so they would expect 25-30 school age kids at the development. KOLA traffic consultant, Luay Aboona, said the intersection for Orchard Rd/White Oak and White Oak/W Mooseheart will be looked at as the traffic is further studied and the new access road will be a full intersection with a left and right turn out onto Orchard with stop sign control. DeRosa mentioned they are working with KDOT and that the development will not warrant a need for a traffic signal. Snodgrass asked if there will be any more meetings for residents to speak and asked about how the construction traffic routes will enter and exit during construction. DeRosa said they will work with the Village regarding access for the site. Steve Bosco mentioned tonight the Plan Commission will make a recommendation to the Village Board and next the Village Board would look at it at a Committee of a Whole (COW) meeting which is a public meeting where people can attend again. Bosco said there will be at least two COW meetings then will be a third meeting for approval is the likely route and residents can speak at each meeting. Meetings are held here at Village Hall and packets will be posted online. Public hearing notices are only for Plan Commission meeting and will not be updated on site. Toth added Village Board meetings are held 1st and 3rd Monday of the month and packets are posted online typically by Thursday afternoon prior to that meeting.
Michelle Pitts (2041 Westover Rd.) has lived near Deerpath Rd for 42 years and had questions about the need for the multi-family housing in the area and didn’t want to bring certain type of people to town. She was also concerned about the environmental impact of marshland in Mirador since it floods every year and has a good amount of wildlife in that area. Toth mentioned there are IDNR reports that are submitted as part of the process. Bosco mentioned governments speak with acronyms a lot and explained what each of the following were: IGA stands for “intergovernmental agreement”, the IDNR is the “Illinois Department of Natural Resources” and PUD is a “Planned Unit Development”. The petitioner questioned what type of people or demographics she was referring to. DeRosa mentioned demand for this type of development is stronger than 20 years ago and many people want to rent now due to maintenance free living. Retirees, young professional, and snowbirds will be attracted to this development. High quality of housing is as nice or nicer than brand new than single family home and average income 10-15% higher than income in the community as a whole. Rooftops drive retail and should help bring more retail to area and help maintain existing retail.
Jared Placek, Engineer with Manhard Engineering, addressed stormwater concerns and explained there are two stormwater management ponds proposed on the development and the current conditions of the stormwater drain north into the Mirador pond. Currently the site is uncontained and unrestricted north into the area, which has been mentioned as a flooding concern. Part of the development stormwater detention basin would hold water for an extended period of time and allows water to slow down. As a result, it will increase amount of time the water heads north. As required by law, the development will improve the current conditions and in regards to IDNR species endangered in the area, not on the site, but in the area, include herons, but the development doesn’t show to have a negative impact on that and will continue to work with IDNR and other governmental agencies. Toth mentioned Village Engineer will review stormwater as well as need to follow the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance.
Dan Carter (1516 W Mooseheart Rd.) had questions about the construction access points, village curfews in regards to the social aspects of the development, dumpster locations and wondered if there would be streetlights at connector road and Deerpath Rd. Toth shared there appears to be eight dumpsters on site and the two access points for the property are on the connector road. Dumpsters would have to follow code of 6-8ft of solid wall or fence with a gate and 6 foot concrete pad. Toth added construction access points will be determined as part of the engineering review and erosion control plan. Bosco stated that curfews generally apply to certain activities after a certain time, but the development would most likely be noise control complaints where a resident can call the police if there is excessive noise. DeRosa mentioned loud parties are not allowed on the weekend; clubhouse gatherings are mostly with family; speakers and pool-related activities are kept at a minimum as well. Carter asked if W Mooseheart Rd will be overflow parking and there will be no access to W Mooseheart Rd from the development. DeRosa said Fiduciary looked into going to W. Mooseheart Rd for access, but after review, traffic going to the connector road made the most sense for the area and creates more buffer green space for the site and the connector road would only have access to the site. DeRosa said the management company controls noise for the clubhouse activities and if residents are loud they can be cited. It could lead to a break in their lease if continued. DeRosa added that no parking is needed on W. Mooseheart Rd since the site has adequate amount of parking. Toth added two parking spaces per unit are required and the developer is providing 2.3 parking spaces per unit. Toth said he spoke with the Police Department regarding W. Mooseheart Rd and the road isn’t supposed to be parked on and cars would be towed if parked there. If it became an issue the Village can enact more specific prohibited parking, if needed.
Steve Poss (832 Benson Ct.) asked what the benefit to the community is since it will add additional people and traffic to the surrounding areas. Kevin Drendel shared the Village does not own the property and must accept the proposal and process it accordingly. Drendel said the Village doesn’t have the ability to just say no if it meets the requirements and outlined how the property owner has private property rights, which gives them opportunity to pursue a development how they see fit. The municipality has zoning controls the developer must follow, but the Village cannot deny a property outright because people don’t like it. Poss asked if this will impact property values. DeRosa added empirical research suggests multi-family adjacent to the single family homes does have a positive impact on property values. Multi-family tends to drive new businesses to the area as well. Toth added business owners tend to look for demographic details, including area income, as part of their research. Toth also added the Comprehensive Plan suggests a transition from single-family to multi-family to commercial rather than a straight jump from commercial to single-family zoning. DeRosa added typically a desirable community has vibrant retail and business because of the people who spend money in that area. The more people spending more money, the more businesses stay open and property values tend to rise.
Max S. (unknown address) asked if the public hearing process results in a vote or just lets residents know what is happening. Bosco explained this meeting takes input by the Plan Commission who is appointed by the Mayor and Village Board. The Plan Commission role is to hear the public input, staff report, developer presentation, and add any conditions they see fit. The Plan Commission then votes to approve or deny the project, but the vote is a recommendation not a final act. Bosco continued it will then go to the Mayor and Village Board, who are elected and they make the final decision to approve it or not. Max S. was concerned about the impact on nature and the number of kids it may add to the schools. He asked if the Village plans to expand the elementary and middle schools. Bosco said the school district is a different taxing body and would make that decision. Bosco mentioned the percentage of property taxes that go to the Village is 5%-6% which would be around $50,000 while the schools would receive 60-70% of the property tax bill. Toth stated a land cash fee and school district impact fee is required for developments and it is paid at the time of the permit. Max S. asked if the east side of Orchard Rd. is part of the development. Toth said not at this time and not a lot of concepts have been submitted for that site. That property is zoned similar to these parcels where it’s mostly commercial property, but allows 30-40% residential should a developer request it. Max S. mentioned more senior living in the area would be nice addition if possible.
Dan Carter asked if the only reason we are here today is for the public hearing regarding the garage situation. Toth stated yes, mostly since the PUD deviation triggered the public notice and once that was opened then landscape buffer was added as a KDOT requirement upon their review. Toth said the developer could meet that code if they do 100% garages, but as mentioned before having too many garages could lead to parking spillover since the garages tend to be used for storage instead of parking. Drendel added in 2012 there was a public hearing for the zoning, annexation agreement and PUD and amended again in 2013, which also went through a hearing process so this is technically the third hearing process this property has gone through. Bosco explained properties are zoned throughout the community and each district has different standards of what can go in where. Staff works with the developer for a few months to get through what they are asking for so they can have all the details lined up for a meeting like this. We can’t notice a public hearing until we find what the change is about and a developer has submitted all the required information.
Jacqueline S. (resident of Tanner Trails) had a few questions regarding ADA units on the property, minimum lease terms, how many three bedroom units there will be, what the maximum people is allowed for gathering area in the clubhouse, environmental concerns for detention regarding pipe size and the depth of the pond. DeRosa mentioned ADA units will be available due to law and 2% of the units typically need to comply. Minimum lease terms are 6, but most leases are usually 12-18 month leases. Toth stated occupancy limits are determine by the local code, which would be the North Aurora Fire Protection District. Jared Placek, Engineer from Manhard Engineering, shared the existing pipe on the south end of W Mooseheart Rd is 12 inches in diameter widens to 21 inches as it travels north to the marsh area. The development would install a smaller pipe to keep the water in the detention basin as long as possible with the water levels in the ponds for two-year storm event reaching 2-3 feet and 100 year flood event reaching 5-6 feet with the capacity to handle 100 years storm events. Toth added there are 26 three-bedroom units on the plan.
Ann Snodgrass had a few more questions regarding occupancy requirements and asked if the site could be voted down if there are enough residents that oppose it. DeRosa stated anyone who lives in the apartment is required to be on the lease and they track everyone who lives there including tenant vehicles. Toth stated again the fire district determines the number of occupants in a building. Drendel added that there are laws regarding defining a family and a municipality cannot make such determination in regards to those terms. Bosco said the Village can vote it down, but there is underlining zoning in place already so the developer could resubmit a site plan and it could be approved by the Village Board. Snodgrass mentioned she didn’t think a $1,400 monthly rent is luxury for a studio. She moved to North Aurora recently from a local community where projects like these have been turned down and developers don’t always follow through on what they offer. She prefers condo ownership instead of rental apartment units. Snodgrass asked about the development by Woodman’s and what is the rental rate and occupancy rate. Toth said The Springs are usually at 95% occupancy, which has 300 units over 18 acres.
Hugo Cardenas (3S701 Deerpath Rd) mentioned he has Oak Trees on his property and believes some are 300 years old. He was wondering if developer could look into preserving the root structure. Cardenas was also concerned about the condition of the rental community after five years. He added there is a potential for residents breaking into his vehicles. Cardenas also shared that the Spring Apartments are not his neighbors, but he can hear the music from his backyard so he was concerned how close the clubhouse was to his house. He also concern about the connector road being too close to the Oak Trees on his property. Cardenas mentioned when most people drink they get loud and happy and could cause noise issues. Cardenas said he would like the developer to look into the Oak Trees which are supposedly 300 years old as they are a key component of why he moved to the property in the first place.
Matt Berger, (resident of Mirador) had a question regarding who is the property owner of this site and have there been any proposals in the past regarding single family homes on this site. Toth mentioned Stan Zepelak is the original property owner of site, but is unsure if developer has officially bought it. Toth stated the village has only a few phone calls for multi-family or commercial on this site, but nothing for single family homes since he started with the Village in 2013.
Chairman Mike Brackett closed the public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Petition #22-02: The petitioner, Fiduciary Real Estate Development, Inc., requests the following actions in the R-4 General Residence District, Planned Unit Development for the vacant tract of land situated west of Orchard Road, south of West Mooseheart Road and east of Deerpath Road:
a) Special Use – Planned Unit Development Amendment with deviations to the Planned Unit Development and Zoning Ordinance
b) Preliminary Final Plat of Subdivision
c) Site Plan Approval
Commissioner Doug Botkin thanked the staff and developer for providing a detailed presentation. Botkin mentioned the Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family housing in that location so the project complies with the zoning, but not necessarily the Comprehensive Plan. Deviating from the Comprehensive Plan is always a thing to look out for, but the plan tonight is legal and should be considered since the property is zoned that certain way. The main question is do we like the development and developer and so far I do and would vote yes.
Commissioner Aaron Anderson thanked the residents for engaging in the process and asked if the renderings and fly through is what the plan is going to be and the impact on surrounding infrastructure. Commissioner Anderson mentioned multifamily developments are newer to North Aurora, but has been written on the wall for 15 years and has now made its way here. Commissioner Anderson questioned how the 20-30 school kid information was determined. DeRosa said 10 school age kids per 100 units is the average and that’s how they got that estimate. DeRosa encouraged staff and members to reach out to other communities about their other properties to get feedback how well those communities are doing and how their standards are being held up. DeRosa said he can provide tours of those communities if anyone was interested. DeRosa added the age range for the development is pretty much any age from 22 to 82. Commissioner Anderson asked how it was determined to locate the clubhouse adjacent to the single family residential housing. DeRosa said the landscape buffer makes it difficult to have the clubhouse anywhere else on site due to pavement and other accessory structures not allowed in the buffer area. DeRosa mentioned if they were allowed to encroach in the landscape setback it would be easier to move the clubhouse more east off the property line. DeRosa said they looked into having all three story buildings and adding 100 more apartments to the site to make it work, but prefer the less dense two-story plan you see here tonight. DeRosa added the site scale fits two-story more, but it appears to come down to the 1:1 garage unit’s provision.
Chairman Brackett also agreed the clubhouse location pushed up next to the private property concerned him. Toth added the site’s primary access is pushed back 400-500 feet due to KDOT provisions, which is why the clubhouse is located where it is. The landscape plan shows adding fencing and evergreens along the adjacent property owner to the west, which allows more buffering and screening for both parties. Chairman Brackett mentioned he thought the clubhouse location is odd since it’s not centralized in the development to all the units.
Commissioner Scott Branson shared there were homes here before Mirador and Tanner Trails were built so development does happen and changes the landscape. Commissioner Branson shared that the three-bedroom apartments will probably be filled with more kids the developer is projecting, but rooftops drive retail and there are lots of new retail opportunities for the Village. Commissioner Branson mentioned he liked the residential plan for that area compared to having an industrial or commercial development next to the existing single family homes. Commissioner Branson also shared concerns regarding the clubhouse location and for the Oak Trees adjacent to the clubhouse area.
Commissioner Anna Tuohy thanked the residents for coming out and sharing their perspectives, views and concerns. Commissioner Tuohy mentioned she lives in Tanner Trails and understands the traffic concerns for the development. She asked if there was only a fence/gate along the west side perimeter of the development or was it for the entire development. DeRosa said the only fencing on the site is along the west side of the clubhouse, which is anticipated to be a six foot wood board-on-board fence. Commissioner Tuohy asked how many residents would be on site if it was at 100% capacity. DeRosa shared it would be around 420 residents on site if occupancy was 100%. Commissioner Tuohy also shared the concern about the clubhouse proximity to the property owner to the west. DeRosa said that concern is noted and will be looked into. Toth said looking into an alternative clubhouse locations can be added as a condition to the list of staff conditions, should the Plan Commission want to recommend approval.
Multiple Commissioners asked about why the buffer dictates the location of the clubhouse and pool and why the clubhouse is so far away from other buildings. Toth shared KDOT requires a full access road to the connector road be 500 feet back from Orchard Road and the clubhouse likes to be the primary access point in most developments so possible tenants don’t need to drive through the entire site to get to the clubhouse. DeRosa shared many complexes don’t have the clubhouse centralized, but is the point closest to the main access point of the site. Commissioner Tuohy said the demand is here since apartments are full occupancy in most parts of the Village and people who want to move here can’t do that do to lack of inventory. Commissioner Tuohy also asked if there have been any crime increase in The Springs since this proposed development is a similar, but less dense apartment community. Bosco stated the Police Department pulled police calls to the Springs and are currently reviewing it. Chairman Brackett shared more density makes it appear there are more calls, but should be viewed propositionally compared to subdivisions with same amount of residents. DeRosa shared after five years, we do not lower our standards and have detailed credit, landlord references and criminal background checks.
Commissioner Tuohy asked how much the average income may be for each unit type. DeRosa mentioned median income for the area is about $85,000 and with 30% going to rent on average you are looking between $50,000 incomes for studios to $90,000 for the three-bedroom units if not higher. Commissioner Tuohy also asked about the traffic concern and would like more information on intersections for Deerpath Rd/Oak St., W. Mooseheart Rd./Deerpath Rd., Tanner Rd./Deerpath Rd., W. Mooseheart Rd./ White Oak Dr., and Orchard Rd./White Oak Dr. as well as Orchard Rd. and Deerpath Rd. in regards to the connector road. DeRosa shared KDOT has jurisdiction of Orchard Rd., but it appears the Village will maintain the connector road once built. DeRosa shared stop light is not warranted at this point, but if Mango Creek (land to the east) is developed it would trigger the signalized intersection. Toth said the connector road was also added to relieve traffic on Deerpath Rd. to Orchard Rd. and vision triangle provisions will be taken into consideration at the time the intersections are developed.
Commissioner Alexander Negro mentioned he was also concerned with location of the clubhouse and asked who is responsible for paying for the stoplight. Toth shared he believes there is a shared cost between Village and Developer, but will check the Annexation Agreement.
Commissioner Richard Newell thanked the residents for the community interest and taking time to be there. Commissioner Newell shared that current demographic trends in the United States show younger groups aren’t buying regardless of economic status and prefer to rent on many occasions. Commissioner Newell also mentioned the clubhouse location seemed weird, but understands why it was placed there. Commissioner Newell asked where the stormwater management goes. Jared Placek mentioned best management practices according to law will be utilized and make it naturalized way to make sure it doesn’t pollute anything downstream. Commissioner Newell also mentioned he had concerns about the traffic study as noted by Commissioner Tuohy. Commissioner Botkin mentioned although the clubhouse is close to property owner to the west, but if the developer moved it to the center, an apartment building with a balcony would most likely be next to the property owner and may be harder to screen and reduce noise.
Chairman Brackett shared the main concerns he’s heard: traffic in regards to the signalization/stop sign on the connector road, the intersections for Deerpath Rd. and Orchard Rd., stormwater management and the location of the clubhouse area. Commissioner Tuohy would like the traffic study to be looked into more going forward. Toth stated clubhouse could be put in as a condition, stormwater would be addressed through permitting and engineering review and the traffic study would be reviewed by the Village engineer going forward and more detailed analysis will be done.
Bosco mentioned there are several options to consider. One option would be to ask the developer to gather more information and come back, if that would help the Plan Commission make a recommendation. Another option would be to vote as-is or add conditions to forward this project onto the Village Board for review. DeRosa mentioned KDOT still has jurisdiction on some roads so they may require certain traffic criteria and will make the ultimate decision on those intersection improvements. Commissioner Tuohy said she was good with the eight conditions in the report as well as adding a traffic and clubhouse location condition to it. Commissioner Anderson said he was in favor to send it on to the Village Board if there is community interest in it. Toth said that he can work with the Village Attorney to draft the Plan Commission conditions in more detail. Toth said staff will provide draft minutes to Village Board for the upcoming COW meeting and outline the main comments and concerns mentioned tonight. Commissioner Botkin asked the clubhouse condition to state that the developer should examine alternate clubhouse locations and not state it is required to be moved. Bosco asked for clarification on the conditions regarding to traffic. Chairman Brackett said the condition was to turn left onto Orchard Rd. from the connector road and to further examine the site in regards to traffic flow on Deerpath Rd., W Mooseheart Rd., and White Oak Dr. Commissioner Negro asked if stop light language is needed to be included in the conditions and how fast the developer would be able to look into alternate options for the clubhouse location. Chairman Brackett mentioned the stoplight would be determined by Kane County as part as their review so it does not need to be included. Bosco said there is a formula they use to determine a stop sign vs. a signalized intersection. Toth shared the annexation agreement appears to indicate the stoplight cost on Orchard Rd. and connector road is tied to cost sharing between the two development sites. DeRosa stated it would take about a week to modify the clubhouse location, but it would be ready in time for the Village Board meeting. Commissioner Anderson asked to add a condition looking into protecting the root structure for the Oak Trees on the property west of the development. Commissioner Tuohy said the IDNR requirement would apply to the site for wildlife so that would not need to be added as a condition.
Motion for approval of Petition #22-02 with the following conditions approved above regarding clubhouse placement, root structures of the Oak Trees on the western perimeter of the development and look into the traffic study in greater detail with staff’s eight conditions was made by Commissioner Tuohy and seconded by Commissioner Newell. Vote: Botkin – Yes, Newell – Yes, Negro – Yes, Anderson – Yes, Tuohy –– Yes, Branson – Yes, Brackett – Yes. Motion approved.
Bosco mentioned there will be two to three more public meetings for public comment discuss the topic before it would be considered for approval by the Village Board. If anyone has any questions they can reach out to Village and more specifically myself and the Community Development Department.
OLD BUSINESS – None
PLAN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND PROJECT UPDATES
Toth mentioned the recreational vehicles item went to the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 21, 2022 and staff is working on finalizing the new ordinance to bring to the Village Board. Staff provided the Village Board with all the Plan Commission’s comments and decided to keep the time as Thursday 6pm to Monday noon and change the two week periods to April 1 -15 and October 15 – 30.
Toth shared that in 2020 Aurora Pack brought forward their full expansion plan and recently submitted building plans that were different than what was approved. This resulted in a minor change that needed to be approved by the Village Board. It was deemed a minor change since it met all the criteria for the PUD for the I-3 District, but changes were significant enough that Village Board needed to approve the altered site plan. Toth also shared permits are getting ready for the Orchard Acres development, which includes Starbucks and Taco Bell.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Botkin. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jessica Watkins
Village Clerk
