CITY OF BATAVIA
TO: Plan Commission
FROM: Joel Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer
DATE: October 15, 2010
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from September 8)
Amendment to the Official Zoning Map
Mooseheart Property, East and West sides of Randall Road and On
Main Street and Mooseheart/Orchard Roads
Moose International, applicant
SUMMARY
On September 8th
, the Plan Commission began the public hearing to consider amendments to the
Official Zoning Map proposed by Moose International (Mooseheart) in conjunction with their
application for annexation. Background information for this hearing is available at: Amendment to the
Official Zoning Map – Mooseheart Property. Minutes from this hearing are attached to this. The
Commission continued the hearing to October 20th.
The Plan Commission’s role in this application is to conduct the public hearing on the proposed
changes to the Official Zoning Map only, make findings of fact that notice of the public hearing was
executed according to the Zoning Code, and to make a recommendation to the City Council’s
Community Development Committee (CDC) on those proposed Zoning Map changes. The
Commission does not have a role in the gathering of information or decision making on annexation of
property. The Commission’s recommendation on the Zoning Map changes would be considered along
with the annexation and draft annexation agreement by the CDC at their regularly scheduled meetings
that are open to the public to attend.
NEW INFORMATION
At the request of the Plan Commission, and pursuant to the Zoning Code, Moose International held an
informational meeting open to neighboring residents at Mooseheart on October 6th
. Approximately 70
people attended this meeting. Notes prepared by Joe Segobiano, representing Mooseheart at the
hearing, are attached for your review.
Batavia staff has prepared a question and answer sheet, attached. This sheet lists questions raised at
the September 8th
hearing and throughout the process, and provides the City’s response. Additionally
the Commission asked about suspected presence of flood plains and wetlands on the property.
Attached is a map showing flood plain locations using Federal Emergency Management Agency
information and wetland locations from Kane County.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission open the hearing and receive all testimony, and invite questions for
the developer and staff to answer. If questions from attendees and the Plan Commission have been
2
responded to, the Commission can then discuss all information from the public hearing and answers to
the questions, and close the hearing that evening if it chooses. The Commission can leave the hearing
open for submittal of additional information it deems relevant and continue the hearing again. Once
the hearing is closed, the Commission must find that all notice requirements of the Zoning Code have
been met, and can call for a motion on the requested change to the Official Zoning Map and act on the
motion; such action would be a recommendation for action to the CDC. The CDC would then consider
the Commission’s recommendation and the record of the public hearing. The CDC would consider the
annexation request that includes a draft of the annexation agreement. The agreement would be
available to the CDC and the public via the City’s website and hard copy during the week before the
CDC meeting.
If the amount of testimony, questions, and discussion would not allow time for a motion at this
meeting, or if the Commission simply wants more time to review the information, the Commission can
continue the hearing to its next meeting on November 3rd
. The Commission also can close the hearing
if all testimony and questions are addressed, and defer discussion and action on the zoning change to
its next meeting.
If the Commission makes a motion at this meeting, staff recommends the Commission recommend to
the CDC approval of the requested amendments to the Official Zoning Map. Notification requirements
of the Zoning Code have been met. All time deadlines were met for the legal notice publication in the
Daily Herald, neighbors being notified by mail, sign postings on the property, and meeting agenda
postings. The requested amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
testimony received so far has not been sufficient to conclude that the land use categories shown on the
Land Use Map or the requested zoning districts would be inappropriate. Many concerns raised address
conditions that would be created with development of the property. The City’s Zoning Code,
Subdivision Regulations and design guidelines require quality development standards, and together
with County, State, and Federal regulations and the annexation agreement provide sufficient
protections for all neighboring properties and sensitive natural areas on the Mooseheart site.
Please review the attached information in preparation for the public hearing on October 20th
.
Attachments:
1. Minutes of the September 8th
Plan Commission meeting
2. Notes from October 6th
meeting at Mooseheart
3. Batavia Staff Question and Answer Sheet
4. Map Showing Flood Plain and Wetland Locations
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Department Heads
Joe Segobiano, Hudson Burnham Development Partners
Patrick Griffin, The Law Office of Patrick M. Griffin LLC
Media
MINUTES
September 8, 2010
PLAN COMMISSION
City of Batavia
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are not a word-for-word transcription of the statements made at
the meeting, nor intended to be a comprehensive review of all discussions. They are intended to
make an official record of the actions taken by the Committee/City Council, and to include some
description of discussion points as understood by the minute-taker. They may not reference some
of the individual attendee’s comments, nor the complete comments if referenced.
1. Meeting Called to Order
Vice-Chair Kosky called the meeting to order at 7:35pm.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Vice-Chair Kosky, Evans, Schneider, Joseph, Weiss, Monn, and
Tilmon
Members Absent: Chair Peterson, Harms
Also Present: Jerry Swanson, Director of Community Development; Joel
Strassman, Planning and Zoning Officer; Drew Rackow, Planner; Jeff
Albertson, Building Commissioner; Mayor Schielke; Ald. Volk and
Brown
3. Items Added/Removed/Changed
Swanson announced the addition of two new members to the Plan Commission (PC). He
introduced Kris Monn, representing the Batavia Public School district, and John Tilmon,
representing the Batavia Park District.
4. Approve Plan Commission Minutes: August 4, 2010
Motion: To approve the Plan Commission minutes of the August 4, 2010 meeting
Maker: Weiss
Second: Joseph
Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent. All in favor. Motion carried.
5. Public Hearing – Amendment to the Official Zoning Map – Mooseheart Property, East
and West sides of Randall Road and on Main Street and Mooseheart/Orchard Roads
Moose International, applicant
Commissioner Joseph read a shortened version of the Notice of Public Hearing. Vice-Chair
Kosky noted that there were a lot of people in attendance. She explained the process of the
Public Hearing to the attendees. Vice-Chair Kosky invited staff to present on the amendment to
the official zoning map.
Strassman presented to the Plan Commission (PC). Strassman reported that Moose International
has submitted an application to the City of Batavia to annex portions of the Mooseheart campus
and other property that it owns on the West side of Randall Road. The sole subject of tonight’s
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 2 of 14
hearing is to amend the zoning map for these properties that are proposed to be annexed. The PC
must hold a Public Hearing for any amendment to the Zoning Map and make a recommendation
to the Community Development Committee (CDC) of the City Council (CC) for action on the
map amendment application. On June 9, 2010, the PC held a Public Hearing regarding a proposal
submitted by Mooseheart to amend the City’s Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The
amendment to the Land Use Map was very similar to the application that is presented this
evening except that it was not for zoning but to change or apply alternate land use classifications
to the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The land use classifications that were
proposed in June and recommended for approval by the PC and eventually adopted by the CC
proposed the same land use classifications that are being requested for zoning districts this
evening. Moose International’s annexation and zoning application covers approximately 470
acres. The current Zoning Map amendment seeks to apply zoning districts that are consistent
with the already adopted and existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Strassman explained
that in approving the Land Use Map in June, the PC and the CC found that the proposed land use
classifications requested in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment would provide
reasonable and appropriate alternative land uses for the campus. They also found that the various
classifications for the land use which included general commercial, single and multiple family,
mixed use, and parks and open space would allow for future development and densities that
could be served by public utilities and would efficiently use transportation infrastructure. The
parks and open space land use parcel and proposed zoning would allow for protection of
sensitive environmental and habitat areas.
Strassman reported that the zoning code requires that the PC and CC find that all notification
requirements for a Public Hearing are met. The Zoning Code requires that a legal notice be
published in a newspaper (one was published in the Daily Herald) and that the notice of the
hearing and agenda for the meeting are posted at City Hall in a timely fashion (which was
completed). Strassman added that the information for tonight’s meeting has also been posted on
the City’s website for quite some time. The applicant has submitted the required affidavits that
establish that the applicant posted signs on the property and that letters regarding the Public
Hearing were mailed to nearby property owners. In the weeks since the letters have been mailed
out staff has received several phone calls from neighboring property owners. The property
owners voiced several concerns which included the types and densities of residences that may
eventually be built on the property, the character and proximity of all development to their
properties, and protection of sensitive environmental and habitat areas. Staff recommends that
the PC open the hearing this evening and receive all testimony from those in attendance who
wish to speak. Staff is supportive of this application as it is wholly consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Map.
Vice-Chair Kosky asked if there were any questions from the commissioners regarding staff’s
presentation. There were no questions. Vice-Chair Kosky requested to officially open the Public
Hearing.
Motion: To open the Public Hearing
Maker: Weiss
Second: Evans
Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 3 of 14
Motion carried.
Vice-Chair Kosky invited Joe Segobiano of Hudson Burnham representing Mooseheart to make
a presentation.
Joe Segobiano, 4155 Meadowview Drive, addressed the PC. He announced that Mike Leuer, the
General Counsel of Moose International, and Pat Griffin, Zoning Attorney for the project, are
also in attendance at tonight’s meeting. Segobiano explained that this project was started nearly
two years ago. The goal of the project is for Moose International to position the property for
future development. There are no time frames set at this point and no developers that are being
talked to at this time. What Moose International is doing is attempting to position the property so
that when recovery begins, and as time moves on, Moose International will have the opportunity
to invite developers in and proceed with the property. Segobiano explained that they are asking
for a zoning map amendment and are not asking for any approvals for site plans. There are no
site plans that are being contemplated at this point. Anything that takes place from this time
forward will have to come to the PC for approval (e.g. any site plans or proposals).
Segobiano explained that he is with Hudson Burnham Development Partners. Hudson Burnham
has been retained by Moose International purely as an advisor. In this role they are serving as the
master developer for Moose International. Moose International is not planning on developing
any of this property themselves. They are considering partnerships. One of the key focuses of
this process is that we invite and engage top-shelf developers into this community. It is very
important for Moose International to create a quality of life community, meaning a very high
standard community here because of the fact that Mooseheart is a neighbor of Batavia and are a
part of Batavia.
Segobiano described the process of this project. He stated that the first thing completed was
developing a highest and best use analysis. Some of the things considered in this analysis were
the market conditions, communications with City staff, surrounding land uses, quality of life
issues within Batavia, and environmental issues. The highest and best use is similar to what is
presented tonight but with some alterations from speaking with City staff. From the highest and
best use standpoint, Hudson Burnham then worked with the City of Batavia on this process.
Segobiano noted that this is not something that they want to push through and they would like to
take time with this process to make sure that the best decisions are made. They understand that
this whole process will take a lot of time. One of the things that are most important in this
process is that we fully engage the public/private concept. We are as concerned about what
happens to this property just as the City is. What we envision is a process in which we are
working with the City almost as another tier in regard to approval of potential developers.
Moose International is extremely interested in seeing quality development. Segobiano explained
that Moose is looking to create revenue to maintain the quality of life at Mooseheart for the
children at Mooseheart.
Segobiano explained the intent to use the land based on the general descriptions of the land use.
The North corner (Main and Randall) is proposed to have 60 acres of general commercial. At
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 4 of 14
this point, given the market conditions, it is hard to discern what the property would be. Moose
International would like to see something along the lines of an anchored lifestyle retail center.
There is a small 20 acre parcel in the middle which is being targeted as mixed use zoning. What
would be foreseen in this area would be a development that may have 2-3 stories offering retail,
office space, residential, and public space. There are about 119 acres which surround this area
and are adjacent to this community which is earmarked as R1H which is single family detached.
The density would be 3.5-5 dwelling units per acre. Moose International has agreed to put a deed
restriction on that property so that it would be active adult restricted. All of the homes would
more than likely be ranch homes and the age restriction would be 55 or better. There are
approximately 47 acres which would be set aside as parks and open space. From the zoning
standpoint, we are very sensitive to the fact that there are mature growth trees and the bald eagle
nesting in the tree. This property would be preserved as open space. South on Randall there are
approximately 60 additional acres of active adult via deed restriction which would be zoned 3.5-
5 dwelling units per acre. The corners are being proposed as general commercial. We feel that
this will be a destination opportunity for a developer. At this point there is no concept on the
property whatsoever. Segobiano continued that alternative uses were considered but found that
there was no fit for alternative uses (e.g. office space and residential). West there are 28 acres
targeted as multi-family, 8-14 to the acre. Currently this is earmarked as potentially higher end
rental. There are no developers being spoken to for that property. Moose International is merely
seeking zoning at this point. Segobiano concluded his presentation with asking if the PC had any
questions.
Weiss asked for clarification on Hudson Burnham’s role when working with potential
developers. Segobiano responded that Hudson Burnham would present the property to
developers that they feel would be a good fit for Mooseheart and the City of Batavia. They
would seek out developers initially. However, timing is an unknown factor. Before a developer is
brought to the City, Hudson Burnham will determine if the developer would do what is in the
best interest for Mooseheart and the City of Batavia. If so, we will bring the developer to the City
and ask if this would be a good partnership. Weiss asked if Mooseheart is also involved.
Segobiano answered that Moose is involved. Hudson Burnham does not make any decisions but
is a partner in the process to help give guidance. Mooseheart has a Land Use Committee which
Segobiano reports to. The Land Use Committee could make certain decisions but ultimate
decisions are made by the Supreme Council. There were no other questions from the PC.
Kosky asked for staff to explain the approval process for the potential amendment to the Official
Zoning Map. Strassman explained that currently the City staff is in the process of working with
Joe Segobiano and Mike Griffin for preparation and review of an annexation agreement. The
annexation agreement came in as part of the annexation application. The application includes the
land to be developed, the amendment to the Zoning Map, and the annexation agreement. The
annexation agreement would detail such items as the deed restriction, age restriction, and how
infrastructure will be provided to the property. Negotiating an annexation agreement is a lengthy
process. The next step would be when staff and Mooseheart feel comfortable with the annexation
agreement to schedule the CDC meeting that would include the committee’s review of the
annexation agreement along with a PC recommendation of the rezoning. That step would not
include a development proposal. It would simply be the annexation agreement and the rezoning.
The CDC will review it and have a conversation with the applicant. The public can attend that
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 5 of 14
meeting. There will be no notification requirement for this meeting. Therefore, there will not be
any mailings to nearby property owners. Once the CDC has reviewed the recommendation of the
PC on the rezoning and feels comfortable with the annexation agreement, the CDC would make
a recommendation to the full CC. The full CC would be presented with ordinances to approve an
annexation agreement, to annex the property and then to apply the zoning districts. The CC’s
review and possible adoption of the annexation agreement is a Public Hearing. There will be
notification. The only notification required is that a legal notification be published in a
newspaper. There will be no notice sent out to neighboring property owners. Staff invites
neighboring property owners the visit the City’s website or to contact staff and ask when the
meetings are scheduled. All meetings are posted on the internet. Agendas are posted Thursday or
Friday the week prior to the meetings. If the CC approves of the ordinances, the next step is
sometime down the line the City would hope for development proposals to come in.
Vice-Chair Kosky opened the floor for public comment.
John Dodo, 146 Feece Drive, noted that the notice to change the land use probably did not
produce this amount of meeting attendees. It is what the land is being changed to is what is
concerning to him. He objected to the commercial development on Main Street. The problems
would include additional traffic and interference with emergency vehicles which does not make
sense. He wanted to make sure that the PC was aware of his concerns.
Marty Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant Lane, stated concern with Mooseheart leasing the land. He
mentioned that another village has had problems with leasing land. He was concerned about
what happens to a commercial building when the business goes bankrupt. He questioned who is
in charge of maintaining the building, who is responsible for the taxes, and who has the liability.
Segobiano responded that Moose International does not want to sell the property. They are
looking at unique joint venture structures or long-term leases. If a developer does go bankrupt or
goes out of business there is a vested interest by Moose International in that property and there is
a vested interest in seeing that property put back to a productive mode. Barrett asked if Moose
International will accept liability in those cases or will the Batavia tax payers be burdened with
that. Segobiano responded that this property would be 100 percent fully taxed on the Batavia tax
rolls. At this point, they do not foresee the Batavia tax payer having any responsibility. Each
agreement will have this issue looked at differently but we will look to put most of the
responsibility on to the developer. However, seeing what is going on in the market we do know
that there will need to be a back stop which will be addressed in each agreement. This is
something that they are sensitive to.
Barrett stated concern with the park and open space because placing a park near a four lane
highway does not make sense to him. He would rather see the park be moved to the interior.
Segobiano responded that this space will only be open space and will not be an active park but
rather a preserve. He added that an additional 20 acre piece of land for the school and the park
district is being worked out for the exact location. Barrett expressed concern with the lake within
that park and with water retention. Water retention may be a big problem. Segobiano stated that
the lake will remain as well as the tributary that goes through the space. The developer will be
responsible to be aligned with the Kane County storm water management requirements. There
will be detention that will not utilize the lake. Segobiano stated that we envision 2-3 regional
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 6 of 14
storm water detention facilities but would like the market to dictate where exactly they will be
located. We have the authority to mandate a detention facility. Currently, there are no developers
interested and it would be premature to find exact locations for storm water management.
Barrett feels that this plan is premature based on the fact that there are no developers and
reiterated that because this land would be leased he would oppose this amendment and hopes that
the PC will reject this. The audience applauded his comment. Segobiano responded that there is
an interest from developers for this land. He receives inquiries on a weekly basis. Currently,
there are no discussions being held with developers.
Barrett asked about the single family high density and what load would it put on the fire
department, paramedics, Main Street, and access roads. He noted that there are very few details
available with this plan. Segobiano responded that as we go through the process the details will
be brought forward. There will be a requirement in the annexation agreement that mandates that
improvements be made on Main Street. A traffic study would be made. Barrett asked if Moose
International has approached North Aurora. Segobiano responded that they have and there is a
boundary agreement in place between the City of Batavia and the Village of North Aurora.
Barrett exclaimed that he would recommend voting against this at this time. The audience
applauded this comment.
Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive, asked about the proposed active adult restricted community. He
questioned how easily could this restriction be changed or lifted. Segobiano responded that it is a
deed restriction which cannot be changed. Gorr asked if the community would be taxed.
Segobiano answered that the residents would be 100% taxed. Swanson added that the Batavia
school district does not encompass the entire Mooseheart campus. The West Aurora school
district has the most Southern portion of the property. Gorr asked if any of the commissioners
live adjacent to this property. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that the PC represents all of the
quadrants of the City. Although Commissioners may not live adjacent they do live nearby. Gorr
asked about the densities, specifically for Harvell Farms. Swanson responded that he believes
that Harvell Farms is between 2-3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Vice-Chair Kosky clarified that what is being looked at tonight is proposed zoning districts.
Layouts for a site plan, storm water facilities, roads, clustering or spacing of housing would be
an entirely separate process. This meeting is regarding zoning and land uses proposed.
Amy Carrado, 570 Mallard Point Drive, North Aurora, questioned if there was a plan for
Mooseheart to remove the barn. Segobiano responded that at this point the barn will remain post
annexation. If the developer could make it a re-adaptive use (reutilize the building for an
alternative purpose) they would prefer that. Without a developer at the table, it is impossible to
answer some of these details. Carrado asked for explanation on what a unique destination use
would be. Segobiano responded that a destination use is a place that people would plan to go to.
It would not be a place in which pedestrians would drive by and stop. Entertainment and athletic
uses would be an example. Carrado commented that her family is not happy with Mooseheart
Road being classified as a designated truck route. It is too noisy and affects her quality of life.
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 7 of 14
Pam Barry, 3S175 Volintine Farm Road, expressed concern with drainage problems. She already
suffers from flooding issues. Segobiano stated that they would work with the City and make sure
the developer commits to the Kane County storm water management requirements. If there are
extenuating circumstances or uncommon problems, we would engage with the local residents
and try to address those. Barry asked if this would it affect the current wetlands. Segobiano
responded that he could not answer that at this time. If the wetlands are under the Army Corp of
Engineers jurisdiction we would be precluded from impacting those. Barry asked if there would
be a buffer between the proposed rental property and the commercial property to the Heritage
West subdivision. Segobiano stated that at this point they are obligated to the zoning ordinances.
However, we reserve the right to administer stricter guidelines if deemed necessary.
Barry asked how the applicant could ensure the proposed rental property would be an upscale
rental property. And in which school district would the rental property reside in. Segobiano
answered that the property is in the West Aurora school district. Segobiano stated that right now
this is a best use but it doesn’t mean that a multi family developer comes in it cannot be there.
How we accommodate higher end use we do that by the fact that different developers will be
brought to the table. This is for a long-term use and not about a quick sale. Moose is concerned
about what happens on that property. Swanson commented that the PC adopted the strictest set of
design guidelines for multi-family housing than any jurisdiction in the western suburbs. The
guidelines require high quality materials, consideration of adjacent property owners, site
planning, and landscaping. The PC has full design review authority of developers and will ensure
that they follow the multi family guidelines. The design guidelines are available for anyone to
review on the City’s website. Barry asked if a streetlight would be available for the entrance to
Heritage West. Segobiano stated that until there is a development we don’t know that for sure.
However, there will be signalization on any Randall Road entrance.
Mike Gross, 1209 McClurg Drive, asked with the push to revitalize the downtown why do we
need more commercial property on Randall Road when there are so many properties that are
vacant already. The audience applauded this comment. Swanson stated that the CC understands
that the number one priority is the revitalization of the downtown. Currently there is a park
district recreation center and parking deck in consideration for development in the downtown.
Swanson added that the City intends to implement streetscape design downtown. He noted that
downtown businesses are not the same market niche as the ones along Randall Road. The CC
amended the Comprehensive Plan this past June with these recommendations for land use in
mind. The number one priority for public funds is in the downtown and they continue to make
downtown the number one priority. Gross asked what is the benefit for Batavia and how much
money will this bring the city. Segobiano responded that the numbers will be available shortly.
At this point the numbers have not been discussed. One benefit is that this property will be 100%
taxable. There will be no tax incentives for the active adult, there are no sales tax incentives, no
subsidies, no TIFF, no SSA, and no public financing of any sort, all of which will be in the
annexation agreement.
Helen Zagoren, 1229 McClurg Drive, has observed stores within Batavia relocating to Geneva
and North Aurora. She questioned why we are making more spaces for buildings when so many
are already vacant. She noted that currently, the intersection of the proposed retail is dangerous.
Zagoren expressed concern about the other wildlife besides the bald eagle that currently resides
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 8 of 14
on Mooseheart property. Segobiano responded that they are also concerned about the wildlife.
Most of the wildlife is located in the forested areas of Mooseheart which is not planned to be
annexed or zoned at this point and it will be kept as is. Zagoren questioned why the property next
to Main Street will not be used for the high school and why does the City we need more people.
More houses will bring more drain upon our system. She thought that Batavia was done growing.
Zagoren concluded that she feels that this is a very bad situation.
Janet Wulbert, 813 Millview Drive, stated that it is hard to go ahead with the plan when there are
so many unknowns. It is hard to trust the plan without knowing details. Wulbert suggested
postponing a vote until we know who the developers are. She asked about what will happen to
the creek at Millview and Danforth. If more housing is developed, what will become of the water
retention? Segobiano stated that at this early time we do not know what will happen with the
creek. There are standards that would require developers to maintain and improve that area. He
added that there are standards in place to protect against developers making water retention
worse. Wulbert wondered about having a buffer partly because of water retention and partly
because of a tree line with old trees and most have gardened along the tree line. She wondered
how close to the property line will the new homes be built. Segobiano stated that he cannot
answer at this time. However, our incentive is different than a large retail developer. There will
be a different approach because we may be very sensitive to issues as opposed to a typical
developer only driven by the bottom line. With us being in the process we could give more
sensitivity.
Wulbert stated that a few years ago Batavians were asked to vote for a recreation center for that
type of use for this property and it was voted down. It involved eminent domain so she voted
against it. She wonders if before the Plan Commission votes on the annexation if we should
revisit having a recreation center on that property. There would be a lot of room to grow as
opposed to the one downtown. Wulbert is concerned that the pool only has six lanes because a
six lane pool will not support a swim team for Batavia High School. In order to avoid buying
more land for the high school, she questioned if the recreation center could be proposed at this
site. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that currently, the 20 acres of proposed additional land for the
school and park district is proposed to be located in close proximity to the high school. It is not
listed on the map at this time because just like the labeling of roads, it is an entirely different
process. Swanson clarified that the City has an ordinance that requires park and school land
dedication as a part of land development. The proposed residential development would cause a
requirement of 20 acres of land above and beyond of what is shown on the map to be dedicated
for park and school. The annexation agreement has certain requirements that are being
negotiated. The PC does not get involved with the agreement. The CC does those negotiations
themselves with the developer. The 20 acres in question are likely to be located south of the fire
station, across from the park. It is the plan of the park and school district that these would be
athletic fields. The improvement of that land will be the responsibility of the district. The vote
that occurred to locate the recreation center was a park district and not a City proposal. Wulbert
concluded that it would be a good time to look at relocating the recreation center as another
option.
Derek Cepolski, 703 Millview Drive, stated that homes on Millview Drive and Ellen floods
every time it rains. If buildings are built along this area, it would raise the water table and it will
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 9 of 14
continue to rise. He would like to know what guarantee would be in place that residents will not
flood and that there would be no water problems. Pat Griffin, 48701 School Road, representing
Mooseheart responded to the question. He reiterated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is
zoning and land uses of these parcels. Many of the questions presented tonight deal with more
specific details that are the subject of an annexation agreement which is being worked on with
the City staff. It will hopefully answer some of these questions. As it relates to storm water
management, there is a section in the annexation agreement that requires developers to comply
with the stormwater management requirements. A comprehensive annexation agreement is
created to handle these issues. Griffin expressed that we are asking tonight if we are in
compliance with the already adopted Comprehensive Plan which we currently are. The
annexation agreement should answer a lot of the questions that will come to the City and will be
available for review. Segobiano stated that beyond that there would be a site plan approval
process in which this body will have authority over. The site plan approval will place mandates
on the site as well.
Spencer Kroning, 608 Millview Drive, stated his support for several of the issues people have
already spoken about. He added that there seems to be a big rush to get this approved. He
mentioned that there were a lot of meetings that residents were not aware of in June. He strongly
supports this area remaining as open space. Kroning noted that the City has recognized in reports
available on the City’s website that there are flooding problems in this area. He commented that
it is possible that these houses should not have been built but they were approved by the City. He
added that the value of his property has been lowered due to flooding and will further be lowered
with a sea of houses nearby. The audience applauded this comment. Just the additions to the high
school have changed what the water does in his neighborhood. Kroning reported that 15% of the
area off of Millview Drive proposed to be high density housing is already reported to be a
frequently flooded area according to the Kane County maps. He noted that the detention pond at
Millview and Ellen frequently exceeds its banks. Weiss commented that revisions to retention
ponds have been implemented. Kroning responded that the retention ponds have overflowed
even after the revisions.
Kroning stated that we have an opportunity to maintain fabulous open spaces which are rare. A
few years ago the City supported that this property remain as open space. The City of Batavia
historically has taken time in making decisions (e.g. bridges). He thinks that the City needs to
take time on this issue. Although CC has already approved the Land Use this is largely a
formality. Vice-Chair Kosky noted that there are a lot of steps before this project becomes a
reality.
Jo Chesters, 513 Ellen Lane, stated that the retention pond discussed by Kroning overflows onto
her property quite often. She stated that she would like to know what residents say tonight will
be taken into consideration or if plans have already have been made. Vice-Chair Kosky stated
that this is the first Public Hearing regarding this issue and the concerns and questions from the
public are taken very seriously.
Chesters expressed her concern with property values. The supply and demand within Batavia has
allowed for property values to not plummet. As soon as this property is annexed and zoned with
high density housing she exclaimed that the property values will go down. Chesters is
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 10 of 14
additionally concerned that Randall Road will become similar to Route 59, overpopulated and
unable to accommodate all of the traffic. She stated that Batavia is doing great and feels that this
plan is trying to mimic areas that are failing.
Chesters asked what the tax revenue generated by the single family and multi-family housing
will be and if the revenue will be greater than the cost of the municipal services provided by the
City. Segobiano stated that the developer would be required to pay for all of the utilities installed
and property taxes. The police department and schools have not been factored in as of yet. They
are working with the City regarding this. Swanson stated that the proposal for age restricted
housing means that there will be no new children entered into the school district but they will
pay taxes that the rest of Batavia residents pay. The only possibility of an addition of new
children that will be generated by the project would be from the multi family development which
is in the West Aurora school district. Chesters commented that the active adult community would
potentially free up housing within Batavia due to people moving into the new community. She
does not want to see an increase of empty lots. Swanson stated that the school superintendent of
the Batavia school district brought that concern up to the commission as well. The PC did have
an opportunity to discuss that point as well as the CDC and CC. With that knowledge they still
recommended approval. Chesters concluded that the property values will drop on the day that the
property is zoned because there will be ample supply of land to build housing. At the current
moment we are beating that supply. The audience applauded this statement.
Becky Hoag, 1281 Danforth Drive, questioned if Mooseheart has a land covenant in place. She
would like the City to clear that issue up that there is a covenant that this land could not be sold.
She asked this question based on the fact that the proposed land will not be sold but will be
leased. She asked if there will be tax on the active adult community homes even though the land
will be leased. Segobiano responded that it would be taxed. Hoag asked for an example of an
anchored lifestyle center. Segobiano responded that the kind of facility we would like to see is a
retail facility more sensitive to design, such as a boutique and two or three retail stores. There are
no examples of an anchored lifestyle center nearby to compare it to. Hoag noted that a hotel
complex has been discussed and asked if it would be in compliance with the land use. Vice-Chair
Kosky responded that a hotel is a permitted use in the general commercial land use. Hoag is also
concerned with flood issues and would like to see an overlay for the flood plan on Parcel C to
see how much you really could develop. She stated that the land on Parcel C looks to be a flood
plain already and does not feel that it could accommodate 5 homes per acre. She concluded that
more details need to be shown.
Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive, approached the commission again to ask if children would be
permitted in the active adult community. Segobiano responded that the house restriction would
be ages 55 or better. This does not mean that children would be permitted. In regards to the trust
issues, Gorr noted that when he bought his property he was told that the property by the high
school was unbuildable.
Sharon Gibson, Heritage West 37W478 Schuster Lane, is concerned with the quality of life in
the neighborhood. The noise, lights, traffic, and difficulty getting out of her subdivision on
certain times of the day would be increased if this property is developed. Gibson is also
concerned with the empty commercial buildings along Randall Road. More commercial does not
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 11 of 14
make sense to her. She feels that those who own parcels next to this land are not having a proper
say or input in the matter. The audience applauded this comment.
Dave Bower, 1435 Green Pheasant Lane, is disappointed that they want to develop the land after
seventy years of having a farm there. He would like to know what Batavia is going to get out of
this deal. He feels that if this land is developed as proposed, Batavia would lose some of its
character and some of its charm. He does appreciate the good intentions of Mooseheart
International but feels that Batavia residents will be saddled with the expenses. Bower asked the
PC to take into account the cost that the proposed zoning will cost Batavia in the future. He gave
an example of the Braeburn marsh and how much it has cost the city to maintain the marshland.
Debbie Westley, 2S961 Heritage Glen Court, is concerned about Orchard and Randall Road. She
asked about multi-family medium density and if it refers to townhomes or apartments. Swanson
responded that it could be either condominiums or apartments. Townhomes are possible but
unlikely. She asked if Mooseheart would benefit from the leasing of the apartments. Segobiano
responded that at this early juncture they are not sure if it would be apartments or condominiums.
They are not sure on how Moose International would enter into a joint partnership at this time.
Segobiano reiterated that the land will not be sold to a developer. Westley noted that the
southwest corner of Orchard and Randall Road now has a lot of vacant buildings on property that
Mooseheart has already sold. She feels that having more development there would be an eyesore.
Westley asked if the adjacent unincorporated neighborhoods would be annexed and then required
to change their source of water. Segobiano responded regarding the Mooseheart property. He
stated that the annexation agreement discusses water treatment on the southern parcels of land
which will be a part of the Batavia water system. This will be at the developers cost. Swanson
stated annexation is a voluntary process unless a property is completely surrounded by city
limits. Annexation would not likely be contemplated. The City has no authority over septic
tanks. They are under the Kane County Health Department’s jurisdiction. Westley asked if the
Batavia electricity be going that far south. Swanson responded that the annexation agreement in
particular with electric contemplates the city’s electric service serving all of the annexed area but
not anything outside the city limits. Com Ed does not have the authority to serve in the city
limits.
Westley asked if this is common to have this much land to be annexed without development
plans. Segobiano responded that this is very common. Swanson stated that this is not common in
Batavia. Westley commented that she likes the open spaces that Mooseheart provides but
understands that development is necessary. Westley would like the council to take into
consideration that there are a lot of unanswered questions here and to take their time in deciding
on the zoning.
Charlie Corey, 1311 Towne Avenue, asked for clarification on the importance of this meeting
tonight. Corey asked if tonight’s meeting/decision is as important as the decision vote on June
9th
. Vice-Chair Kosky responded that there are many decisions along the way and the decision to
rezone is as important if not more as the decision on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Corey
asked if the vote tonight is a critical vote. Swanson interjected that the PC action would be a
recommendation to the CDC. The CDC is the committee that will review the annexation
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 12 of 14
agreement, the PC recommendation, and any ordinances that will annex the property and then
pass a recommendation to the CC. The real decision authority rests with the CC. Annexation
agreement, the annexation itself, and the zoning are all under final purview of the CC. Corey
stated that his point was to ask if the PC votes “no” on the zoning if this would send a strong
message to the CC. Swanson stated that it would. Corey concluded that it is very important that
the PC listen and act on what you have heard and not just listen and then ram things through like
it has been done in politics lately. The audience applauded this comment.
Rich Bicek, 415 Ellen Lane, asked if this was a done deal. Segobiano responded that it is not.
Bicek asked if there is something that the residents need to say or do to ensure that it is known
that the residents do not want this zoning to happen in this way at this time. Swanson stated that
the minutes of this meeting, which will include all of the public comments, will be sent to the CC
for review. He added that the future CDC meeting with the PC recommendation is open to the
public and it is at the discretion of the chair to take public comment. There will be a public
hearing on the annexation agreement for CC. Vice-Chair Kosky suggested that residents contact
their alderpersons.
Chris Surtz, 517 Ellen Lane, is concerned with drainage issues, planning issues, and the creek
bed. He asked about the adoption of Ordinance 10-23 on the June 21, 2010. There was a vote 5-0
in favor of the ordinance. Strassman stated that Ordinance 10-23 was approved by CC which was
the ordinance amending the city’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. Land use classifications
have been applied to the Mooseheart property as shown on the current Comprehensive Plan.
Strassman explained that it is a good planning practice to have the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map and Zoning Map to be aligned. It was a conscious effort by the City of Batavia to have
Moose International to complete the Comprehensive Plan process before putting effort into the
annexation process and zoning. A Public Hearing was held in this conference room regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment. The CDC made a recommendation to amend
the Land Use Map based on the PC recommendation. The recommendation was made to the full
CC and the CC considered that ordinance at an open meeting and subsequently adopted it. Surtz
asked if this ordinance predicated this zoning. Strassman responded that it strengthens the
proposal to apply the various zoning districts if the Comprehensive Plan shows those land use
categories. Surtz asked to know who voted in favor and against the ordinance. Swanson
responded that the vote was unanimous in favor of the ordinance. All council members in
attendance voted for this. He noted that the vote is public record.
David Bower, 1435 Green Pheasant Lane, addressed the commission again. He questioned if any
of the commission members have ever walked the land. Schneider responded that he has and has
done so for the past fifty years. He commented that the development of the land over the years
has been positive to the City of Batavia. Schneider clarified that the Public Hearing is part of the
process and that he would be surprised that a vote be placed tonight. Schneider commented that
this Public Hearing should be continued.
Bower questioned why there are so many straight lines on the zoning map when there are a lot of
oak trees and the land is hilly. Additionally, he was concerned that the character of the property
will disappear. Swanson stated that in order to zone property you have to legally describe it.
Typically zoning boundaries are streets. Streets do not all go straight, they have curves. There is
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 13 of 14
little chance that these boundaries will remain exactly as is. Some of the lines will move when
the streets are delineated. Bower restated his concern with what Batavia gets out of this project.
Swanson responded that the city would receive tax revenue on the property when it is annexed
based on the assessed value of the land. The city’s tax levy would apply to properties within the
city limits.
Maggie Soliz, 1022 Morton Street, understands the fear and how things change. She stated that
trust is a hard thing to do. Soliz commented that she understands everyone’s views. Thirty-one
years ago she lived at the edge of town. After developments she is no longer at the edge of town.
She enjoyed the open fields and thought they were beautiful but now looking at the subdivisions
built she thinks they are beautiful too. The people that she has met through the new
developments have brought a lot of vitality to the city and additional residents will to the same.
She stated that we worry about all those people coming but all of the people will be tremendous
assets to the children in our schools, buyers in our art festivals, and will have a lot to offer our
city. Soliz concluded that she thinks that participating in dialogue is more constructive than
milling and making accusations.
Paul Nelson, 37W708 Cigrand Court, is not concerned with development of the property but his
main concern is with the types of developments being brought in. He is concerned about the
multi family medium density housing proposed to be built. The neighborhood where he grew up
had become ruined by high density and multi-family housing. Housing that didn’t start out to
become what it has become changed affecting the dynamics of the neighborhood. One by one,
high crime and gang activity has plagued the multi-family housing. He is a police officer and
sees what the multi-family housing has become and would hate for Batavia to have the same
crime issues.
Tim Moore, 1411 Green Pheasant Lane, asked why this development is being created without a
development plan. Swanson responded that the scale of this project is so large to expect/predict
what exactly would occur through the course of developing the parcels would be unrealistic. He
gave the example of the manpower wasted on planning and approving a project on Kirk Road
which has been annexed and approved by the city. The only thing that has been built was a water
tower by the city. The development on this property will most likely end up different than what
was planned and there was a tremendous waste of resources used toward the planning of this
project. Swanson explained that this project is significantly larger in scope. At this point it is
simply an annexation in an attempt by Moose International to obtain initial authorization to do
more detailed planning. The annexation agreement will give greater detail than what a simple
zoning map will do. The detailed planning in the past had parcels owned by a developer as
opposed to a land owner.
Moore asked about Parcel C and if the PC has talked to the water department to understand how
this drainage will work. Swanson responded that the city’s Public Works Department and
Engineering Department are both on the team of professionals that are evaluating the annexation
agreement. In all cases of new development it is the private sector’s engineer that does the
drainage design. The city reviews it, approves it, and in many cases will modify it to make sure it
works correctly. We also inspect the construction and facilities when completed. The annexation
agreement will call for the preparation of a preliminary drainage master plan for the entire site
Plan Commission
September 8, 2010
Page 14 of 14
before any individual development applications are proposed. That will have to be done by an
engineer that is qualified to do such plans and will be reviewed by the city’s professional staff.
Moore asked for the PC to inquire on what type of wildlife lives within the proposed parcels.
Moore asked to have this postponed and that there are a lot of comments that need to be
considered.
The PC discussed the preferred method to move forward. Schneider requested to continue the
Public Hearing and not vote tonight. Tilmon agreed that he would like to reconvene so that more
residents could speak. Swanson stated that the newly adopted Zoning Code allows staff to
require the property owner to host a neighborhood meeting. Vice-Chair Kosky asked for a
motion to continue the public hearing for a month from now and have the property owner host a
neighborhood meeting.
Swanson requested residents who are interested in attending a neighborhood meeting to email
their interest to Joe Segobiano at [email protected]. The neighborhood meeting
information will be placed on the city’s website. Residents are welcome to contact staff
regarding the neighborhood meeting as well.
Motion: To continue the Public Hearing to the October 20, 2010 Plan Commission
meeting and to require the property owner to host a neighborhood meeting
Maker: Evans
Second: Weiss
Voice Vote: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Absent
Motion carried.
6. Discussion: Update of the Standard Design Review Conditions for Commercial and
Industrial Projects
The discussion was tabled to the September 22, 2010 Plan Commission meeting due to lack of
time.
7. Other Business
There were no other business.
8. Adjournment
There being no other business to discuss, a motion was made to adjourn the meeting by
Commissioner Schneider; seconded by Commissioner Monn. All in favor. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:06pm.
Minutes by Jennifer Austin-Smith
Mooseheart International (Host) Community Meeting Zoning Discussion October 6, 2010 7pm – 9pm Summary of Questions/Concerns PLEASE NOTE: This summary is not a word-for-word record of the statements made at the meeting. This summary is
not intended to be a comprehensive review of all comments and questions. This document was created to identify the
individual concerns and questions of the attendees, however, may not include some of the individual attendee’s
comments or questions, nor the complete comments if listed. Names of individuals that spoke were not all stated
therefore are not all listed below.
Pam B.
Pam stated concern with type of multi-family housing and does not want to have rentals going in.
As Joe Segobiano explained, there are no definite plans at this time regarding the type of multi-
family. The focus of the meeting is to discuss zoning for the property. Pam inquired how new
utilities affect existing communities that are on well and sewer? The proposed project will not
affect the existing well and sewer. She asked what is going to happen with the schools; they are
already crowded? Joe Segobiano stated the single family residential will be age restricted and
will only help fund the school without increasing the school’s population.
Leonard Wadewitz, 1163 Danforth Drive
What is going to prevent Mooseheart from selling and putting the money in the bank? Joe Segobiano stated Mooseheart is a neighbor to Batavia and has a vested interest in seeing this project succeed. Leonard stated there is no demand for what Mooseheart is proposing and
asked about green alternatives such as selling to the government or local farms, etc? Joe
Segobiano stated if it would be profitable for Mooseheart to do that they would.
Raymond Dremel, 1361 Towne Ave
Will Mooseheart put into an agreement that they will remain the master developer? Joe
Segobiano stated that it would not be in Mooseheart’s best interest to do that.
Tom Gorr, 609 Millview Drive
What if City of Batavia says no; what will Mooseheart do? As noted by Joe Segobiano
Mooseheart has alternative options if not approved by the City of Batavia. Tom asked why all of
the sudden will Batavia have a surplus of taxes? Joe stated the tax benefit will be throughout the
life of the development which could be 20 years.
Another attendee stated the project will be over the required PE cap for sewage and if sewage
flows above cap will Mooseheart pay for a new plant? Joe stated Mooseheart is not allowed to
exceed the 1525 PE Cap therefore it will not require a new plant.
Dwayne Gillon, 1230 Newton Avenue
There are options with Fox Metro regarding the 1525 PE Cap. Joe Segobiano stated we are in the
process of working with Fox Metro.
Another attendee asked what will happen with the streets and access roads? Joe Segobiano stated
at this time we are only going through the process of zoning with the City of Batavia. We have
not yet determined or made any plans for streets and access. However, Mooseheart is obligated
to follow all requirements of KDOT and the City of Batavia.
Another attendee asked how revenue will be generated for Mooseheart on the residential
development? Attendee questioned who will maintain the residential property? Joe Segobiano
stated Mooseheart discussed creating land leases for revenue. In addition, the Developer and/or
Mooseheart will ultimately have the responsibility of maintenance. The question was then asked
what assurance will there be of the open space to remain open? Joe Segobiano stated the open
space is required to remain as open space through the City of Batavia approved Comprehensive
Plan; it would take a vote of City Counsel to change use.
Jim Urhausen, 28 N 1st Street, Geneva
Mr. Urhausen asked if Fox Metro District is taking the steps to amend capacity to support the
project and is there an agreement with City of Batavia and Fox Metro? Joe Segobiano stated
Mooseheart is currently working with Fox Metro and there is no agreement with the City of
Batavia.
Marty Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant
Can Mooseheart survive if nothing gets developed in 10 years? Scott Hart from Mooseheart
International replied yes. Mr. Barrett inquired why Mooseheart wants to rezone if there is no
market as stated by Joe Segobiano. Joe Segobiano explained Mooseheart is currently in the
process for zoning approval. This will position the property for development in the future when
the market turns around.
Another attendee asked if there is a survey that shows there is a demand for Active Adult? Joe
stated based on internal analysis done we have found there is, in fact, a need for Active Adult.
The attendee also asked if wildlife and deer already been eliminated because of this project? Joe
Segobiano stated no action has been taken by Mooseheart to eliminate any plants or animals; we
are only working through the zoning process. Attendee asked if project will begin all at one time
and will Developer be held to certain standards as she was in her community; as far as RVs and
fireplaces, etc? Joe Segobiano stated more than likely the market will not enable the project to
start all at once. Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham anticipates development to be phased in and the
zoning process will take its time instead of a piecemeal approach. Additionally, the Developer
will have to abide by all standards and ordinances governed by the City of Batavia as any
community in the City of Batavia is required. Mooseheart will retain the right to enforce more
strict guidelines and standards as well.
Another attendee stated she believes the proposed project will have an impact on the schools due
to the Active Adult community. Joe Segobiano stated the Active Adult will be restricted to no
children therefore this project will not have any direct impact on the population of the school.
Ben Bernardi, 554 Mallard Pointe Drive
Mr. Bernardi declared he is concerned with the commercial; he lives in North Aurora and does
not want to worry about staring at a Costco or Wal-Mart. Joe Segobiano stated it is not decided
what type of commercial will be there at this time.
Scott Vance, 2721 Sperry Court
Mr. Vance is concerned about a new sub-station that will require power lines. Joe Segobiano
stated that any lines for power would be buried along Randall Road.
Debbie Westley, 25961 Sperry Court
Ms. Westley stated once the property is zoned all the property values will drop. What type of
commercial are you thinking of putting in? Joe Segobiano stated our research shows
development will in fact increase property values and some commercial use can be a benefit to
the surrounding neighbors. He also explained there are no plans with any Developers at this time
and the type of commercial is unknown.
H Luke Brinks, 1211 Danforth Drive
Mr. Brinks inquired about what price points are you running the taxes for. What developers are
you talking to that are willing to lease land? Have you seen this before that was successful and
can you give examples? Joe Segobiano stated the price points used for analyzing taxes were
$250,000. Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham are currently speaking with several “best in class”
Developers. We have seen this succeed before and are familiar with a similar development in the
north suburbs.
Another Attendee asked if zoning goes through and Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham finds out
revenue will not produce could Mooseheart still sell? Joe Segobiano stated that it would be
Mooseheart’s right to sell the property if they wanted but they are neighbors of the property and
have a vested interest in seeing it survive.
Another attendee asked what studies have been done for this project? Are there Land Surveys?
Highest and best use? Annexation agreement? And can you share them? Joe Segobiano stated a
highest and best use was created along with an annexation agreement, however the annexation
agreement has not been finalized. City of Batavia representative, Bill McGrath, stated all
documents the City of Batavia has is available to the public. The City of Batavia has been
working with Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham in the rezoning process. It does not matter how long
this process takes to create a solution; the City of Batavia is willing to put in the time with
Mooseheart/Hudson Burnham.
Kelly Lukowicz, 1145 McClurg Drive
What if Batavia does not approve; legally what can you do about it? Are there alternative
options to seek approval? Joe Segobiano stated there are alternative options. Pat Griffin, Zoning
Attorney for the project, stated Mooseheart does have alternative options. The project currently
resides in Kane County and Mooseheart can go through the process with the County to get the
project approved if necessary. Also, there is a possibility for approval in North Aurora.
Another attendee stated Mooseheart does not have the money to develop the water and needs the
public to fund it. Joe Segobiano stated that Mooseheart does have money and that is not the case.
Furthermore, Developer will be required to pay for utility improvements.
Laura Barrett, 1336 Green Pheasant
How do you compare this project to the Moosehaven, a Mooseheart community located in
Florida? Ms. Barrett has concerns with the Active Adult in Homestead and believes this will be
in direct competition of that community. Joe Segobiano stated that this project is a completely
different type of project than Moosehaven which is exclusive to members only. Our project is
targeted for an active adult lifestyle and not a senior living-type facility. She also stated she is
concerned if the Developer fails the project can become abandoned and unsafe. Joe stated that is
a genuine concern and the project will not happen tomorrow. The Developer selected for the
project will be “best in class” and is required to go through a selective process all managed by
Mooseheart. Mooseheart will be in the community for 100 more years and they are looking for
this project to do be successful.
Randy Forman, 990 Danforth Drive
Mr. Forman stated his wife and him have lived here for 17 years and believe the City of Batavia
can benefit from this project. Mooseheart is donating 20 acres to the school in order to put their
baseball diamonds on, a donation that is desperately needed by the school. Randy stated the land
is owned by Mooseheart and is their right to build on it. He is in support of this development.
1
MOOSEHEART ANNEXATION AND ZONING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
October 15, 2010
Q. WHY IS MOOSEHEART ANNEXING LAND TO BATAVIA?
A. Moose International has decided that it needs additional revenue to operate Mooseheart Child
City. Membership in the Moose has been declining over the years, and Child City is supported
by membership fees and general revenues of the organization. In order to sell or lease their land
they would need to obtain approval for land uses other than the farming use now permitted by
Kane County zoning. Like any other property owner, Moose International has the right to use its
land for productive purposes. Moose International has decided to ask the Batavia City Council
to annex 470 acres of its land, on both the east and west sides of Randall Road.
Q. WHY CAN’T MOOSEHEART DEVELOP ITS PROPERTY IN KANE COUNTY OR
ANNEX TO NORTH AURORA? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO COME INTO BATAVIA?
A. Kane County will not permit significant development in unincorporated areas without
sanitary sewer service. They also require property owners to develop within an adjacent
municipality that can provide public services. The City of Batavia and the Village of North
Aurora entered into a boundary agreement in 2003 that establishes Mooseheart Road east of
Randall and Orchard Road west of Randall as the future annexation limit between the two
communities. The boundary agreement is valid until 2023. All of Mooseheart land is within the
future annexation area of Batavia.
Q. DOES BATAVIA HAVE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY?
A. No. Annexation is a choice that the Batavia City Council will make. There is no legal
obligation to annex property into any jurisdiction. The Council will have to determine that the
annexation will be in the best interest of the community. Annexation requires a 2/3 vote of the
City Council on an ordinance after it holds a public hearing.
Q. IF THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED, WHAT GUARANTEES WILL THE CITY HAVE
THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY?
A. There are several ways the City is protected. First, the annexation will be pursuant to an
annexation agreement. This is a contract between the City and Moose International that sets
forth the conditions under which the City will annex the property. It is a legally binding
document, and may run for as long as 20 years. Second, the City has very strong development
regulations, including subdivision regulations and a new Zoning Code. Everything that gets built
in the City is subject to design review by the Plan Commission, and subdivisions require City
Council approval. Many additional county, state and federal regulations apply as well.
2
Finally, all development decisions will be made in public meetings with many of them requiring
formal public hearings. The community will have opportunities to ask questions and comment
on development proposals at these public meetings.
Q. WHAT DOES MOOSHEART WANT TO BUILD?
A. Mooseheart itself does not intend to build anything. They propose to act as a master
developer of their property, planning the land uses, utilities, major streets and access points, and
establishing design guidelines for those who will actually develop individual parcels.
Mooseheart will choose the future developers of their land. Because of the size of the property
and the different land uses proposed, no one developer would be able to effectively build all of it.
This is why there is no specific development proposal on the table at this time. The types of land
uses are controlled by the City through its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, plus whatever
additional restrictions are approved in the annexation agreement.
Q. WHY THE BIG HURRY TO APPROVE THIS ANNEXATION AND ZONING?
A. This project has been under consideration by Moose and the City for about two years. Just
because there is no specific development proposal does not mean that City review and action on
the annexation application should be delayed. The City intends to insure that the annexation
agreement in particular is solid and protects the community over time. It also has to be fair to
Moose International, which is a long-standing community asset. There is no reason to rush it
through, but there is also no reason to arbitrarily delay the annexation and agreement once they
are ready for approval.
Q. HOW CAN THE CITY PROVIDE UTILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES TO
THIS LARGE AREA?
A. Providing water, sanitary sewer, fire, electricity, police services, and storm drainage are all
complicated and challenging issues. All the physical improvements necessary to provide
services to the annexed area will be paid for and installed by the developers of the property. The
City will not incur additional capital costs as a result of the annexation.
Water. New water lines will connect to existing lines in the City, and there will be an
emergency connection to the Village of North Aurora water system at Mooseheart Road.
Sanitary Sewer. Sewer service north of Mill Creek will be provided by the City of
Batavia, but south of Mill Creek it will be by Fox Metro Sanitation District in Aurora.
The amount of development north of the creek will be limited by the annexation
agreement to protect the City’s sewer capacity, especially for downtown redevelopment.
Fire Protection. All of the annexation area is within the current boundaries of the
Batavia Fire Protection District. The area can be served by the existing west fire station
and through the mutual aid agreement with North Aurora. The Fire Department
3
anticipates no additional staffing will be required, but obviously over time experience
will dictate any change in staffing requirements.
Electric. The Batavia electric utility has capacity to serve the annexation area.
Developers will need to construct transmission lines and potentially a new substation in
the south portion of the property. Mooseheart has stated that permanent electric
transmission lines will be installed underground along the Randall Road corridor, but
outside of the Kane County right-of-way.
Police. Batavia Police will handle emergency and non-emergency calls in the annexation
area. Randall Road is a Kane County highway, so both the Batavia PD and the County
Sheriff will respond to traffic calls. Investigations will be handled in the same manner as
currently done for the rest of the City. Given the distance of some parts of the property
from the current City limits, the lack of street connections to the east, and the large
number of traffic incidents on Randall Road, it is likely that additional police staffing will
be required. This will be addressed in the annexation agreement.
Storm Drainage. Developers will be responsible for constructing both drainage and
detention facilities. Facilities will be sized to accommodate the new runoff caused by
development, and to accommodate some of the existing stormwater runoff that affects
existing neighborhoods. The annexation agreement requires stormwater management
plans to be prepared by the developer and approved by the City before any development
takes place. All stormwater management plans will conform to the Kane County
ordinance and the Batavia City Code.
Q. MOOSEHEART IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, SO WILL THE DEVELOPMENT
PAY PROPERTY TAXES?
A. Yes. The entire development will be taxable, because the project is not directly related to the
tax-exempt activities of Mooseheart Child City. This will be true even if Moose retains
ownership of the land and leases it to private parties. The only exception would be the parks and
open space parcel if it permanently deed restricted for open space purposes, or is deeded to a
preservation entity.
Q. IS MOOSEHEART ITSELF GOING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY?
A. No. Moose International intends to leave the Mooseheart campus itself unincorporated.
Q. WILL EXISTING UNINCORPORATED NEIGHBORHOODS BE ANNEXED INTO THE
CITY AS PART OF THE MOOSEHEART ANNEXATION? CAN PRIVATE WELLS AND
SEPTIC TANKS BE KEPT?
A. No. State law would prohibit the City from forcing the annexation of the Heritage West
neighborhood or other unincorporated properties. The property owners and residents would have
to formally request annexation. Kane County regulates wells and septic tanks, and they only
have to be abandoned if they quit working.
4
Q. HOW CAN THE CITY ENSURE THAT THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON
ORCHARD ROAD WILL BE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT?
A. In addition to the development standards in the Zoning Code, the City has adopted design
guidelines for multifamily development. The City Plan Commission has to approve the design
of all new construction projects, and uses the 13-page multifamily design guidelines as a basis
for its decisions. The guidelines cover architecture, colors and materials, site planning, and
landscaping, and will make certain that any development is a good neighbor to existing homes.
Q. WON’T THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CAUSE TRAFFIC HEADACHES?
A. Before any development will be approved, Moose International will be required to fund a
traffic study. The study will evaluate the traffic expected to be generated by the project, identify
locations where new streets can connect to Randall and Orchard Roads, Main Street and
Millview Drive, and specify new traffic signal locations. The study will also call out the extent
of street improvements needed on existing City and County roads. Kane County will require this
study before it approves any access locations along Randall Road and Orchard Road, which are
County highways.
Q. THE TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS EAST OF RANDALL ROAD ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE “ADULT” COMMUNITIES. HOW CAN THIS BE GUARANTEED?
A. Moose International intends to deed restrict the land for occupancy by persons 55 and over.
This restriction would be permanent, and the annexation agreement will also make it a
requirement of the project. The restriction would run with the land, even after expiration of the
annexation agreement, so regardless of who owns it in the future the restriction would remain in
force. This is a common practice for senior developments.
Q. THE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS ABOUT 47 ACRES NEXT TO MILL CREEK AS OPEN
SPACE. IS THAT ALL THERE WILL BE IN THE PROJECT?
A. No. The 47 acres is to be preserved as a natural area. About 20 acres south of the Covenant
Church and the west fire station will be dedicated to the Batavia Park District and School District
101 for recreational use, most likely for baseball and softball fields. Stormwater management
areas will be planned for each area north and south of Mill Creek, and for the property west of
Randall Road. Smaller open spaces will be included in each development at it is planned in
more detail. There will be an open space buffer adjacent to developed neighborhoods.
5
Q. WHY CAN’T THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN RECREATION CENTER BE LOCATED
ON THE MOOSEHEART PROPERTY ON WEST MAIN STREET, LIKE WHAT WAS
SUGGESTED A FEW YEARS AGO?
A. The land belongs to Moose International, and they decided not to sell the Main Street land to
the Batavia School and Park Districts. Since then the Park District has reached an agreement
with the developers of the land on Island Avenue and Houston Street to build a recreation center
there, if the voters approve the November 2 referendum. The 20 acre recreational land in the
Moose annexation area will be used for baseball and softball fields, not a recreation center. In
addition, the Batavia School District 101 no longer has funds available to purchase the land.
Q. THERE IS A FLOODING PROBLEM IN THE HARVELL FARMS NEIGHBORHOOD.
WILL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOOSEHART LAND MAKE THE PROBLEM
BETTER OR WORSE?
A. By law the development of land cannot make the flooding of adjacent property any worse.
The City will insure that the development of the Mooseheart land will improve the situation for
the Harvell Farms neighborhood. There is never a way to guarantee that everyone will be
protected from flooding all the time, but construction of detention basins and proper runoff
channels, as required by City and County development codes, will do a lot to improve the current
situation.
Q. WHY CAN’T THE MOOSEHEART LAND BE PERMANENTLY PRESERVED AS
OPEN SPACE, LIKE MANY PEOPLE WERE TOLD WOULD BE THE CASE?
A. Moose International, like all other property owners, has a right to a reasonable economic use
of their land; the City cannot legally mandate the land be preserved as open space. Although
Moose told many people over the years that they would not develop their property, their situation
has changed and so has their policy about developing their land. Many decisions were made
based on the previous Moose policy, including not extending streets into the Moose land. Those
decisions now have implications for the development of the property. Moose International will
have to solve the problems associated with limited access, utility connections and similar issues.
Q. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOOSEHEART LAND WILL LOWER PROPERTY
VALUES IN NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE NEW HOUSES AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
A. As long as the new development is designed and built in a quality manner, with adequate
buffers and landscaping, property values in adjacent neighborhoods should be protected. In the
long run, neighborhoods throughout Batavia have increased in value even with additional
residential and commercial development, including those along Randall Road. With recent
housing market problems no one can be guaranteed of stable or increasing property values. To
the extent that people expected permanent open space on the Mooseheart land, they were
6
mistaken or misled by others. The type of housing proposed by Mooseheart is age-restricted
senior housing, which is a different market segment than the traditional family neighborhoods
adjacent to the property. The new housing product will not compete with existing housing, as
they are in different market segments. Additionally, this type of housing typically generates less
traffic during rush hours and does not add children to school districts.
Q. RANDALL ROAD ALREADY HAS TOO MUCH RETAIL SPACE, MUCH OF IT
VACANT. WHY BUILD MORE?
A. With much tighter lending and underwriting standards in place, financing for new retail
development will only take place when the vacancy rates have fallen and when much of the
planned space is pre-leased. It will undoubtedly take some time before that is the case. The
expectation is that the residential portions of the project will precede any retail component. The
Mooseheart property is the last significant retail location on Randall Road in the Tri-Cities. The
southeast corner of Randall Road and Main Street has been a designated retail location in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan for many years, as has both corners on the north half of the
Randall/Mooseheart/Orchard intersection.
Q. WILL TAXES GENERATED FROM THE PROPERTY COVER THE COST OF THE
ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED?
A. Various people have attempted to project future property and sales tax revenues from the
project at its completion. There is no accurate way to predict those revenues until the actual
development is proposed, because there are so many different land uses possible in the General
Commercial district. The best that can be said is that the tax rates will be the same as for the rest
of the City, and there has to be a balanced budget adopted by the City Council every year. There
are several other taxing districts that together receive about 90% of the property taxes in the City.
By having new developments pay for all of the costs of new infrastructure to serve the property,
the existing City taxpayers will be protected from subsidizing new development.
Q. WHAT DOES THE CITY GET OUT OF THIS ANNEXATION?
A. The City exists for a variety of purposes, but generally to insure that the quality of life is
enhanced for current and future residents, businesses and visitors. Although the City does
consider financial issues in its development decisions, they are not the sole determining factor.
If that was the case, churches would not be approved, as they contribute no direct financial
support to the City. Instead they contribute immeasurably to the social fabric of the community.
As the Mooseheart land is developed, the City will insure that it is done in a manner that
complements the rest of the City, that the project does not become a burden on current residents,
and that there is a sustainable result. The City lacks housing choices for upscale multiple family
development and single family housing suitable for older adults, so those uses would contribute
to a balanced community.
7
Q. WHY ARE THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ALL STRAIGHT?
A. The boundaries were drawn to generally reflect the locations of the various land uses. When
actual development proposals are set forth, the internal boundaries will be redrawn to line up
with the future streets, drainage areas and other more realistic boundaries. This is common
practice when there are large vacant parcels that have yet to have streets planned. The new
zoning district boundaries will be located in the same manner as the district boundaries in the rest
of the City. Any adjustment of zoning boundaries will require a public hearing before the Plan
Commission, and approval by the City Council.
Q. WILL THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON ORCHARD ROAD BECOME A
LIABILITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY?
A. Batavia has the most stringent design guidelines for multi-family development in the Fox
Valley. The guidelines, adopted in 2008, cover site planning, landscaping, architecture and
colors and materials. The new Zoning Code, adopted in May 2010, also has standards for
enclosed garages, setbacks, landscaping, private open spaces like patios and balconies, building
height, and similar elements of a project. The Plan Commission has design review authority
over all new construction in the City other than single family homes. On top of this, the City has
adopted the International Property Maintenance Code, which is actively enforced, if necessary
including citations adjudicated through our Administrative Hearing Officer.
Q. WITH ALL THE FLOODING IN THE AREA, SHOULDN’T THE CITY TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE MAPPED FLOOD PLAINS ON THE NORTH PARCELS?
A. Absolutely. The wetlands and flood plains on the Mooseheart property will be protected in
accordance with county and federal laws. Maps of flood-prone areas and aquatic resources
(wetlands) will be sent to the Plan Commission prior to their October 20 continued public
hearing. Future subdivision plats will have to address wetlands, floodplains and stormwater
management areas, including drainage and runoff channels. Only very limited development is
allowed in flood plains. Development must also be kept back some distance from mapped high
quality wetlands, which must be preserved. Applicants for development approvals are required
by law to delineate the wetlands on their land. Some mitigation can be permitted for the lower
quality wetland areas.
Q. HOW CAN PEOPLE KEEP ABREAST OF WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THIS
PROJECT?
A. The City has a webpage devoted to the Mooseheart project. All public documents related to
the project will be posted there, including notices, meeting minutes, staff reports and maps. The
page can be viewed at www.cityofbatavia.net.
MAIN ST
MAGNOLIA DR
FAGAN RD
DANFORTH DR
VOLINTINE FARM RD
COM ISKEY AVE
GREEN PHEASANT LN
SARA CT
KANE LN
MALL
ARD
POIN
T DR
TOWNE AVE
NEWTON CT
CANNON CT
RULE
ST
SNOW CT
ORCHARD RD
KINNE CT
TWIN ELMS LN
DEER
TRAIL
DR
SYCAM
ORE LN
HERT
ER LN
DEERPAT
H RD
FAGAN CT
PHEASANT HILL DR
DEER
PATH
RD
KEN
PEDD
Y CT
BIG WOODS DR
BUTTERMILK LN
ELFSTROM TRL
HAPNER WAY
PRAIRIE RIDGE LN
LIMESTONE DR
BIRD LN
HALLADAY DR
TIM
BER DR
DONA
T CT
HILL
TOP D
R
TANGLEWOOD DR
MOOSELAKE AVE
MOOSEHEART RD
HALLADAY
CT
MEAD
OWVIE
W RD
WILLIAMS RD
HARVELL DR
HERITAGE DR
PAYNE AVE
WHITE OAK LN
VALLEY RD
SCHO
NBAC
K CT
WADE
LN
CIGRAND CT
QUAIL
ST
RAND
ALL R
D
ALBEROSKY WAY
SCHUSTER LN
HILL LN
HUNT LN
WILD
WOOD
DR
CHALLENGE DR
NEWTON AVE
S RAN
DALL
RD
MILLVIEW DR
MCCL
URG DR
AVERILL DR
S FE
LLOW
SHIP
L N
JAMES J DAVIS DR
LAKE CIRCLE DR
MOOSE RD
CHILDRENS DREAM ST
N FE
LLOW
SHIP
L N
S PI LG
R IM
S T
A ST
BRANDON BLVD
LEGION LN
CORNERSTONE RD
BROO
KLI N
E RD
LAKE SHORE DR
OHIO ST
SPRU
CE RD
S FA R
M RD
CHANCELLOR AVE
S INT
ERNA
TIONA
L DR
N PILGRIM
ST
FARM
RD
Mooseheart PropertyFloodplain and Wetlands
10/15/10 - Community Development DepartmentSources: FEMA, KaneGIS, Batavia GIS
0 1,000500 Feet¯Maps and data provided by the City of Batavia are not intended to have, nor do theyhave, the accuracy of surveys or legal descriptions of land areas. GIS data obtainedfrom the City of Batavia is intended for representational use only. Reliance on suchmaps and data is at the risk of the recipient. This information, in either electronic or mapform, is provided “as is”. No warranty expressed or implied is made regarding theaccuracy, timeliness, or completeness of the data, nor shall the act of distributionconstitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the dataand aggregate use with other data.
Batavia City LimitsRivers and Creeks100 Year FloodplainWetlandsSubject Area