Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Randall Oaks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shodine presents Randall Oaks annexation concept: 183 units, mixed‑use commercial and request to reduce parking ratio
Summary
Shodine presented a concept plan for Randall Oaks—an annexation and mixed‑use project with 183 residential units, about 32,000 sq ft of commercial space, 264 underground parking spaces and roughly 300 surface spaces; the developer requested flexibility to reduce the village’s 2‑spaces‑per‑unit requirement to about 1.3–1.5.
Shodine representatives presented a concept plan for the Randall Oaks site—an unincorporated parcel surrounded by North Aurora—at the Dec. 16 Village Board meeting, laying out a potential annexation agreement, roadway connections and a mix of residential and commercial uses.
David Patzelt, the developer’s presenter, said the project would connect Miller Drive through the site, include nine buildings (seven primarily residential and two commercial), and provide ground‑floor commercial space along Randall Road. Patzelt gave counts for the conceptual plan: about 183 residential units; a 17,000‑square‑foot mixed‑use building and roughly 15,000 square feet across two commercial buildings (about 32,000 square feet total commercial); 264 underground parking spaces and approximately 300 surface spaces shown on the plan.
Patzelt also presented parking research from comparable nearby projects (Oswego, Geneva, Saint Charles) and argued the village’s ordinance requiring two spaces per residential unit is excessive for this product mix. He said the applicant would show a 1.5 ratio on the plan but prefers to build to 1.3 spaces per unit and keep additional green space land‑banked so it can be converted to parking if necessary. Patzelt told trustees his portfolio typically shows about 1–1.2 vehicles per occupied unit in comparable senior and mixed‑use products and that school districts historically raised no objections because the product tends to attract older, non‑school‑age residents.
Trustees probed density, potential impacts on traffic and schools, and architectural details. Several trustees said they prefer more architectural detail (pitched roofs, varied facades) and that design standards could be included in an annexation agreement. Staff noted the project is at an early stage and pledged to research parking comparables and return with analysis.
No approvals or annexation votes were taken; trustees generally expressed conditional support pending additional parking and design information.
What’s next: Staff will study nearby parking practices, and the applicant and staff will refine the annexation agreement and design standards for future board consideration.
