Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Aurora trustees tentatively back sharing cost to extend fence at Mitchell Road site
Summary
Village staff presented fence and landscaping estimates for the existing 300 Mitchell building and the developer asked the village to share costs for extending screening along the northern property line. Trustees debated precedent and taxpayer responsibility and directed staff to draft PUD language with the attorney for a potential cost-share (example: permit-fee discount).
The North Aurora Committee of the Whole on Oct. 21 considered a developer request for village cost-sharing to extend screening and fencing along the northern property line of the existing 300 Mitchell Road building as part of a broader planned unit development that includes a new 302 Mitchell tenant. Nathan (staff) presented vendor estimates and options, and said the village staff "recommend[s] if board like to go through with that, we recommend it be in the form of a permit fee discount" as a way to offset some of the developer's cost.
Why it matters: The existing building (300 Mitchell) already is approved and is not required to have the extended fence; the developer offered to build the fence for residents’ benefit but asked the village to share a portion of the cost. Staff provided high-level estimates: an 8-foot fence at roughly $141,000, a 10-foot fence at roughly $180,000, and supplemental landscaping priced at about $35,000. Staff noted the new building’s permit fee is in the neighborhood of $150,000, and a permit-fee credit (for example, 50% of that permit fee, about $75,000) would roughly cover half the cost of an 8-foot fence.
Board debate centered on two issues: whether the village should spend taxpayer dollars to address a condition tied to a building already approved, and whether aesthetics and uniformity warrant participation. One trustee argued that the village "didn't create" the situation and saw no obligation to spend ~$150,000 of taxpayer money on a fix for a previously approved building. Other trustees said consistency and neighborhood impacts — and the developer's willingness to act — weigh in favor of assisting, at least in part.
Trustees discussed a 50/50 split as an initial framework, and several members expressed support for the village covering a portion of the work. Staff said they will draft proposed PUD-language and consult the village attorney to frame any cost-share arrangement and return with wording and options. The developer (Prologis) and staff asked for guidance; Nathan said, "We're just looking for some guidance." The committee did not take a formal vote on a cost-share amount at the meeting.
Next steps: Staff will prepare draft ordinance/PUD language and legal review language for a future meeting, and return with refined cost estimates and recommended mechanisms for any village contribution. No appropriation or binding commitment was made at this meeting.
