St. Charles residents press council over single‑access Clayborn Farms concept, citing traffic, water and safety risks

A packed St. Charles Committee of the Whole on Monday, April 20, heard more than a dozen residents challenge MI Homes’ concept plan for the Clayborn Farms subdivision, saying the proposal’s single nearby access would overload local streets, compromise emergency access and strain aging utilities.

The concept plan presented by MI Homes would build 76 homes on roughly 38.8 acres, the developer said, with perimeter lots enlarged and about eight acres set aside as open space and stormwater basins. The developer and owner representatives emphasized the filing was a concept for feedback and would not be voted on at the meeting.

Why it matters: Residents said the plan would transform the character of northwest St. Charles and create measurable safety and infrastructure risks unless the city requires — and the developer provides — a more robust access plan, full traffic counts during peak school and commute hours, and utility modeling to guarantee adequate water pressure and fire flows.

Concerns raised by residents focused on access and traffic. "A single T intersection into Rosebud Drive…creates only one external connection and a single point of failure," said Ryan Madigan, who presented an engineering review, citing the city’s staff report and AASHTO/IDOT guidelines. Madigan said the subdivision’s estimated 727 new daily trips could, combined with nearby subdivisions, push the corridor to roughly 2,785 trips per day, which he said is about "86% above the design capacity of a local residential street." He urged the council to require a complete traffic‑impact study and to adhere to the 2021 International Fire Code requirement for two separate fire‑apparatus access roads for developments exceeding 30 units.

Multiple neighbors described repeated congestion and safety risks at peak school drop‑off and pickup hours. "One entrance, one exit, nearly a thousand extra daily trips," said Kaylee Wait, a student and resident, describing the pedestrian risks for students who walk or bike to school. Several homeowners submitted photos and a crash log showing collisions on Redgate Road and asked the council to delay any decision until detailed traffic, sight‑distance and crash‑history analyses are complete.

Utility capacity and water pressure were also central concerns. Janet Wickham told the committee that previous development required booster pumps in new homes and that the local system already struggles to maintain adequate pressure during peak use; she urged the council to consider regional water plans and the city’s water‑utility master plan before approving annexation or higher densities.

Developer response and process: John Hosite, representing property owner Jim Cook, and Russ Whitaker of MI Homes described Redgate Farm’s history and said the revised concept reduced lot count from earlier plans (83 to 76 lots) and increased lot sizes around the perimeter. Whitaker said MI Homes engaged KOA, a traffic‑engineering firm, performed traffic counts and believes the proposed boulevard entrance with separated ingress/egress lanes can meet emergency‑access requirements. He reiterated that the filing was a concept and that more detailed engineering, traffic, utility and stormwater studies would be required if the developer elects to proceed.

Council reaction and next steps: Council members repeatedly asked staff and the developer for formal technical analyses. Alderperson Spelman and other members noted staff and the planning commission had earlier suggested primary access to Redgate Road as preferable, with Rosebud Drive serving only as a secondary or emergency access. Multiple members said they would not expect annexation or plan approval without a traffic study focusing on peak school and commute hours, a water‑modeling report for pressures and fire flows, a fire‑department review of emergency ingress/egress, a tree survey, and bonding or restrictions for construction access and potential road damage.

No formal action was taken on the concept. Director Colby and staff emphasized the concept presentation is an early stage: detailed engineering and formal submittals would follow only if the developer decides to proceed. The council moved remaining agenda items and scheduled follow‑up technical reviews and public engagement if MI Homes pursues formal plans.