Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses annexation agreement, open-space-focused PUD south of Route 38; public hearing expected
Summary
Trustees reviewed a draft annexation agreement for property south of Route 38 tied to a low-density, open‑space-focused planned unit development presented by Shodine Construction; board directed staff to refine terms and set a public hearing if comfortable with the draft.
The Village Board received a staff presentation and developer comments on a draft annexation agreement for property south of Route 38 and discussed next steps toward a public hearing.
Village staff said the draft agreement reflects weeks of negotiations among the village, the developer, local fire districts, school district representatives and civic groups. David Patzelt, representing the developer, described the proposal as lower‑density than a typical transit‑oriented development and emphasized significant open space within the plan. The developer provided an updated “bubble” plan showing access points and internal neighborhood layout.
Trustees and staff discussed intergovernmental issues: portions of the development would lie in the service areas of Elburn Countryside Fire Protection District and Fox River Countryside Fire Protection District; residential portions fall entirely within School District 304; the village has been meeting with the Mill Creek Water Reclamation District about sewer and water service. Staff said statutory public-notice steps would require publication 15 days before the hearing and notice to certain township and district entities at least 10 days before the hearing. Trustees asked whether the board could delay final approval after the public hearing if new issues arose; staff replied the hearing is for public input and the agreement may be amended afterward.
Trustees discussed coordination with the Geneva Park District about how neighborhood open space might be programmed and whether the park district would own or maintain internal neighborhood open spaces. Developers said open-space areas in neighborhoods would likely be passive or semi‑active (play areas, tot lots) rather than large, lighted athletic fields; the developer noted previous patterns of contribution where park districts and developers each contribute toward park improvements and pursue grants for additional funding.
Staff said, if the board is comfortable with the current draft, a public hearing could be scheduled tentatively for the week of June 26; the timeline requires publication and notices in advance. The board gave direction to continue refining details, coordinate with the listed agencies, and return with any final revisions and a proposed public‑hearing date.
