Against the pleas of nearby residents, the Sugar Grove Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday voted to recommend for final approval a controversial development proposed by Crown Community Development .
The development, known as “The Grove,” is proposed to transform 760 acres of farmland near the Interstate 88 and Route 47 interchange in unincorporated Kane County just outside of Sugar Grove into master-planned neighborhoods, commercial areas, a town center and a business park with over 200 acres of open space. Part of the development proposal is to annex the land into Sugar Grove.
Crown Community Development, which is based out of Naperville, currently owns the area and, if the project gets final approval, would prepare plots of land within the development area with grading and infrastructure development before selling those plots to other developers who would build the structures.
Since Crown is not the final developer of the land, except for the parks and amenities, the company does not know where specific uses will be exactly located, so it requested a special type of zoning known as a Planned Development District, or PDD.
This zoning designation is unique because it lets Crown negotiate allowable land uses with the village of Sugar Grove upfront instead of having to come back to the village for approval on every project within the area.
Crown Community Development’s Jennifer Cowan said this will allow flexibility for market variability and is essential to project development.
The requested Planned Development District zoning also included a number of variances from the village’s zoning code, which Cowan said would help the project be more in line with modern building standards.
The zoning request was discussed by the Sugar Grove Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals at a meeting that went for over six and a half hours on Monday evening before being continued to Tuesday evening for another five hours.
Many residents of Sugar Grove and the unincorporated neighborhoods near the proposed project site showed up over the two days to oppose the project.
More than 10 of these residents spoke at the meeting as legally-defined “impacted parties,” which means they live within 250 feet of the proposed project, and over 30 more spoke during the meeting’s public comment time.
Each of the residents who spoke opposed the project, and often for similar reasons. Speakers said they were worried the project would damage the area’s rural character, harm public health, disrupt private water supplies and increase traffic, among other concerns.
Residents also said they were frustrated by the length of the meetings and the security required for entry. Outside the Village Bible Church, where the meetings took place, Sugar Grove police officers directed members of the public through metal detectors and searched bags before letting them enter.
After almost 12 hours of public comments, developer presentations, cross-examinations and committee questions, the Sugar Grove Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals voted to recommend the project’s zoning, with some changes recommended by staff and others made during the meeting, to the Village Board in a 5-2 vote.
Residents opposed to the project said in a public comment period after the vote that they felt like village officials were not listening to or did not care about their concerns.
The next meeting related to the development will be a Sugar Grove Village Board public hearing, where the board will formally discuss the proposal for the first time. That meeting will take place at 6 p.m. Aug. 20 at Waubonsee Community College’s Academic and Professional Center at 4S783 Route 47 in Sugar Grove.
The Village Board will not take a vote at that meeting, according to a meeting timeline posted to the village’s website . A final vote on the proposed project could potentially be held at the following Village Board meeting at 6 p.m. Sept. 3 at the same location as the Village Board public hearing.
When the Village Board considers the project for final approval, it will consider each of its parts: the Planned Development District, an agreement to annex the land into the village and a tax increment financing district, or TIF, that would help to fund the project.
Each of the parts will need to be approved for the project to be constructed, Crown Community Development has previously said.
The Planned Development District zoning for the project would determine which land uses are allowed and which are restricted within each of the development’s five areas. It would also set architectural and other standards within those areas.
Area one, which is planned for the part of the land that currently borders the edge of Sugar Grove, is planned to be a neighborhood with larger lots and a ban on vinyl siding, according to a presentation given at the meeting by Cowan.
Area two, which is north of area one, would also be neighborhoods but would have smaller lots and contain townhouses, Cowan said during the presentation.
Area three, which is nearly completely surrounded by area two, is a mixed-use area proposed to be a walkable “town center” complete with a village green, park, beer garden, village hall and more, she said. This area could hold both commercial and residential development.
Area four, which is north of I-88, is proposed to be a business park known as Grove Park, according to Cowan. She said the area could hold warehouses, data centers, offices, medical buildings or commercial development.
Industrial uses within the development would be capped at a maximum of three-and-a-half-million square feet, with fulfillment and sorting facilities further capped at one-and-a-half-million square feet, Cowan said.
Area five, which is also north of I-88, would be designated as mixed-use, meaning it could hold multi-family residential, commercial or office developments, her presentation showed. A fueling station to support trucks coming from Grove Park is also proposed for this area, she said.
According to Cowan, while it is uncertain where in each area specific types of developments would be constructed, the land uses allowed and restricted in each area cannot be changed without a change to the development’s overall zoning, which would need to be approved by the Village Board.
The Planned Development District zoning would be transferred between owners, so when Crown sells the land, the new owners would need to follow the same standards.
The Sugar Grove Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals requested Crown make a number of changes to the Planned Development District zoning, and Crown agreed to most of the requests.
Committee member Anthony Speciale requested that Crown make recycling centers, transfer stations and manufacturing special uses in area four instead of allowable uses, and Crown agreed to the request. This change means these types of projects would only be constructed with Village Board approval.
But, even if The Grove development gets final approval by the Village Board in September, it would still be two or more years before development in area four, which is the business park, takes place, according to Cowan.
She said Crown must develop the area from south to north, as existing utilities that Crown would need to expand for the project are currently located in the south.
In addition to the various land uses proposed for each area, the development would also include 200 acres of open space, site plans show. Cowan said this open space would include improved naturalized areas with over five miles of trails and 70 acres of existing tree groves.
All of the parks and amenities within the development would be constructed by Crown and ideally open to the public by donating them to either the village or the park district, according to Cowan. She said that if both refused the amenities, they would then be controlled by a homeowners association.
Crown Community Development Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Teri Frankiewicz said during her presentation that the plan was informed by public input gathered at public forums last year.
However, the residents who showed up on Monday and Tuesday evening to oppose the project said the proposal would be harmful to them and their way of life. They also questioned whether or not the proposed project meets the village’s own zoning standards.
Many said the project would impact the area’s rural character, which is one of the main reasons they moved to the area. Some talked about how they enjoyed being able to see the stars at night or spot wildlife in the nearby fields, while others talked about the safety they felt in their rural neighborhoods.
While Cowan said the project was designed to be a “transition” of land uses from residential near the existing village boundary to industrial further out, residents in the unincorporated area near where the business park would be located said they would get no transition. Many said they feel ignored by both Crown and the village.
The business park known as Grove Park was the center of many residents’ concerns.
Some were concerned about air pollution from trucks coming to and from any potential warehouses in the area. More than one of the speakers said they were nurses, and that fumes from trucks and pollution from their tires would have an impact on public health, particularly children and the elderly.
Crown employees said they submitted an air quality report with their project application showing that pollution levels in the area would actually fall after their development was built because of stricter EPA standards and the retirement of aging truck fleets.
Residents said they were concerned the fueling station in area five would actually be a truck stop, which would further contribute to air pollution as trucks idle.
Cowan said this was not the company’s intention, so it would put restrictions into the Planned Development District to ensure it does not become a truck stop, like banning overnight parking, showers and mechanic bays.
Another common complaint against the project was that it would increase traffic, making roads more dangerous.
According to a traffic study Crown submitted with its development application, the development would increase traffic in the area by around 35,440 car trips and 730 trucks per day when it is fully constructed. A traffic engineer hired by Crown said at the meeting that Crown would make a number of road improvements as needed to mitigate the additional traffic.
Residents also said they were concerned about Crown’s ability to build structures on the land based on a study by the Kane-DuPage Soil and Water Conservation District.
Cowan said Crown had its own reports based on soil borings that differ from the district’s, and that many projects in Kane County that have been fully completed by Crown have had similar reports from the district.
While they refused to show residents, saying the studies were proprietary, they did say they would provide the studies to the village for review.
Another major issue residents had with the project was that it could impact their water supplies, particularly for those relying on private, shallow wells in unincorporated Kane County.
Ross Powell, professor emeritus of Northern Illinois University’s Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, said he was concerned Crown’s grading of the land would disrupt the shallow aquifers and that those later purchasing the land could potentially pollute the aquifers.
Cowan said that grading would not impact the aquifers based on current engineering plans and that stormwater runoff from the property does not contribute to refilling these aquifers, so the development is not expected to have an impact on nearby residents’ wells.
Considering the large amount of homes, businesses and light industrial buildings like data centers proposed for the development, Powell said he was also concerned that the project could deplete Sugar Grove’s water supply. However, Cowan said the village told Crown it would be able to handle the full development with its current water system without the construction of new wells.
Powell and others disagreed with the findings of Crown’s studies on everything from air pollution to traffic. For the studies that were not released publicly, such as the soil report, Powell and other residents said they did not believe that Crown even had many of the findings they claimed to.
Residents were also concerned with Crown’s commitment to the project, saying that the project is aspirational, not practical, since there are no hard plans for the land and that, if the right type of buyers are not interested, the development will not end up as advertised.
Some cited a Crown project near Seattle, Washington, called Ten Trails, which also was proposed to include residential and commercial development along with public amenities, that residents say is not living up to Crown’s promises.
When asked about Ten Trails by Plan Commission member Larry Jones, Crown’s Frankiewicz said that the company is still actively working to develop the site after the project began in around 2015, and has recently sold a number of parcels in the development area.
Crown is dedicated to keeping its commitments, has never abandoned a project and has continued to invest in them even when the land was not being sold due to market conditions outside of its control, like the COVID-19 pandemic, she said.
The plan is to only begin land preparation work once a buyer for that land has been identified, according to Cowan. She said that, while no contracts have been signed because the project has not been approved, the company has been approached by interested buyers.
rsmith@chicagotribune.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0