Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clover Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears plan for 124‑unit age‑restricted Clover community in Orchard Gateway; parking, sidewalks and design flagged for follow‑up
Summary
Clover Development proposed a 124‑unit, deed‑restricted (55+) independent‑living building as a PUD amendment for Orchard Gateway. The board expressed general support but asked staff to research parking comparables and to lock design standards in any annexation/PUD agreement.
Clover Development returned to the North Aurora Village Board on Dec. 16 seeking approval of a PUD amendment to allow an age‑restricted residential component in the Orchard Gateway Town Center.
Russell Capelin, representing Clover, said the company operates more than 50 age‑restricted multifamily communities and that the proposed project is a 124‑unit independent‑living building for residents 55 and older. Capelin said the product does not include nursing care or communal kitchens and is intended to offer a lower price point than assisted living. “We’re very excited about the opportunity to come to North Aurora,” Capelin told the board.
Staff described the requested PUD amendment as reauthorizing residential uses in the town‑center area and adopting updated residential standards; exhibit D in the board packet lists those standards, including allowing a four‑story building in the identified area. The site plan shows 148 parking spaces with additional “land‑banked” spaces the applicant can install later if demand warrants, and staff said sidewalks along the full frontage will be extended as part of development work.
Trustees asked multiple questions about parking and safety. The application was returned from the plan commission with a request that the applicant study parking; the applicant said its portfolio averages about 1–1.2 spaces per unit in similar communities and that additional spaces can be installed if needed. Trustees asked staff to collect neighborhood comparables and to consider design requirements—some board members said they want pitched roofs and more exterior detail to keep the development consistent with nearby commercial architecture.
No formal vote was taken; trustees generally voiced support for reintroducing residential in the town center and asked staff to return with more detailed parking data and design standards to include in any annexation or PUD agreement.
What’s next: Staff will work with the applicant on parking analysis and potential design standards and bring refined materials back to the board for formal consideration.
