Oswego planners push back on Hummel Trails plan that would add 61 lots, shrink park

The Oswego Planning and Zoning Commission on a night in January reviewed a developer’s amended concept plan for Hummel Trails Neighborhoods 6, 7, 8 and 9 that would add 61 single‑family lots, reduce typical lot sizes to about 8,400 square feet from an earlier average of roughly 12,020 square feet, and shrink the neighborhood park.

The plan prompted sustained questioning from commissioners about density, neighborhood compatibility and how the project will remain within the overall unit cap in the annexation agreement. After discussion the commission voted to recommend the petitioner reduce overall density and to ask the developer to increase pedestrian access through the neighborhood to the park.

The petitioners said the changes respond to market shifts and adjustments made to neighboring developments. John Philip Chuck, an attorney representing the petitioner, told commissioners he was “one of the original drafters of the annexation agreement back in 2008” and that the agreement anticipated some future adjustments. Designer Mike Schoppe of Schoppe Design Associates said “by going down to the 8,400 square feet, that’s the minimum lot size that we’re looking at,” and said some lots adjacent to existing neighborhoods would be larger to create a transition.

Under the approved annexation plan the entire Hummel Trails development carries a cap of 1,056 dwelling units. Schoppe and the petitioner said they expect to stay within that cap by reducing units elsewhere on the master plan — for example, converting a planned 178‑unit townhome neighborhood (Neighborhood 11) to a lower‑count duplex product (about 122 duplex units) and by not building an assisted‑living building in Neighborhood 12 that accounts for roughly 99 units on the original plan.

Commissioners pressed several specifics. Staff and the petitioner said the primary changes are: (1) a reduction in typical lot size in the affected neighborhoods from an average of roughly 12,020 sq ft to a typical 8,400 sq ft; (2) a reduction in park acreage (staff and the park district described the change as a roughly 2‑acre decrease); and (3) modified street layout to provide better street frontage to the park and a connection to South Berry Boulevard. The revised concept shows South Berry Boulevard with an 80‑foot right‑of‑way, a pavement width the petitioner estimated at about 31 feet, a 5‑foot sidewalk on the south side and a 10‑foot multi‑use path on the north side.

Park district staff said they prefer consolidating smaller neighborhood parks into larger, more usable parks and that the park district requested increased street frontage along the park to reduce private property encroachment. “We actually would prefer as a district to get away from… smaller parks in every neighborhood,” the park district representative said, adding that a consolidated park would permit larger amenities and simpler maintenance.

Several commissioners said the proposed lot sizes represent a substantial reduction from previously approved plans and from recent village minimums. One commissioner noted the village’s Unified Development Ordinance currently sets a 10,000‑square‑foot minimum in some residential areas after the village board revised an earlier recommendation of 7,000 sq ft. Commissioners also discussed side‑yard requirements (staff cited an 8‑foot side yard, which creates a minimum 16‑foot separation between adjacent homes) and asked the petitioner to consider wider lots along South Berry Boulevard to reduce the appearance of density and curb congestion.

The commission’s formal actions were procedural recommendations to the village board rather than final approvals. The commission first voted on a motion to recommend reducing the overall density of the proposal—by increasing lot widths to lower the total number of lots in the amended concept—and that motion carried. The commission also approved a separate motion to recommend that the petitioner increase pedestrian access and connectivity through the neighborhood to the park and took a separate vote that accepted the park‑site adjustment with the park district’s support.

The petitioner said any change to the total unit count would be adjusted elsewhere in the approved master plan and pointed to specific clauses of the 2008 annexation agreement that allow concept variations and a limited percentage change in dwelling units. The petitioner said cash contributions will replace some land dedications for park and school dedications where acreage was reduced.

Next steps: the developer will use the commission’s feedback to refine engineering and preliminary plats and will return to the village and, ultimately, the village board for additional approvals and any requested amendments to the annexation agreement or concept plan. The commission noted this concept review is the stage to obtain guidance before the petitioner expends resources on engineering and final platting.