Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. I'd like to call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for August 19th, 2026 to order. Secretary Wright, please conduct the roll call.

Abu Baker. Here. Castagnoli. Here. Langenbaum. Here. McDaniel. Here. McGowan?

Here.

Nahmes?

Here.

Wright is here. Chairman, we have a quorum.

All right. Thank you. The first order of business tonight is public forum. During public forum, members of the public have the opportunity to address the Planning Zoning Commission on issues which are not part of tonight's agenda. Please keep your comments limited to three minutes. Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker. Secretary Wright, do we have anyone sign up for public forum?

No one tonight.

Thank you. Next order of business is public hearings. We have two public hearings scheduled for tonight's meeting. For each hearing, we will begin with the staff presentation or introduction, followed by the petitioner's presentation. We will then take public testimony to ensure we have an opportunity to hear from each person wishing to speak. Please keep your comments specific to the request under consideration and try to avoid repetitive comments. Also, for the sake of all those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by another speaker. Following all public testimony, the petitioner will provide closing remarks just prior to the closure of the public hearing. No further public testimony will be taken after the petitioner begins their closing remarks or during Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberation. I will now swear in any member of the public wishing to speak. To those who wish to provide testimony, please stand up, raise your right hand and respond, I do. I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Okay, first case on tonight's agenda is DEV00392026. Public hearing is now open. Isaac Marlott from staff will present the case.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. ISAAC MARLOTT WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING SERVICES TEAM. DEV-0039-2026 IS A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO SECTION 6-2-10-3 OF THE NAPERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 26 FOOT TALL DETACHED GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 151 NORTH RIGHT STREET. The subject property is zoned R2, single family and low density multiple family district and is located on the southwest corner of School Avenue and Wright Street. The property is located within the city of Naperville's local historic district. However, accessory structures located within the rear yard, including detached garages, do not require approval of a certificate of appropriateness and are subject only to the standard building permit review process unless staff has identified additional entitlements. The property is currently improved with the single family residence and a detached accessory garage. The petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing garage and construct a new four-car garage in the rear yard. The garage is proposed to be 26 feet tall in order to accommodate a second floor home office, fitness area, and storage space. Detached accessory structures in the city are regulated by Title VI, Chapter 2, general zoning provisions, allowing for a maximum of 18 feet in height for any accessory structure within a residentially zoned district. In the original submission, the proposed height of the accessory structure was 29 feet, 10 and five eighth inches tall, exceeding the accessory structure height requirements by close to 12 feet. After receiving staff feedback, the proposal was reduced to 26 feet in height, exceeding the height requirement by eight feet. The petitioner is seeking a variance to section 6-2-10-3 for the proposed increased and allowable height. THE GARAGE IS OTHERWISE COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF TITLE 6 CHAPTER 2 SECTION 3 YARD REQUIREMENTS AND TITLE 6 CHAPTER 2 SECTION 10 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS STRUCTURES AND USES OF LAND. HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE INTENDED TO SERVE AS A TOOL TO MINIMIZE BULK AND PERCEIVED VISIBLE IMPACT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS. IN THE RESPONSE TO STANDARDS, THE PETITIONER INDICATES THAT THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS NECESSARY TO MATCH THE CAT SLIDE ROOF SLOPE STYLE OF THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE OTHERWISE UNFOUND IN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE. The petitioner also noted the proposed garage design will improve the utility of a historic home to meet the needs of a modern family, maintaining compatibility with the adjacent historic residents and not impairing adjacent properties. Staff finds the proposed style to appear complimentary to the existing residents, however noted the request for additional height to provide storage and a more accessible second floor is neither standard nor a required feature of an accessory structure. Staff notes that the petitioner has amended the original request in response to staff feedback and the proposal is compliant with all other underlying zoning requirements, but does not find evidence of significant hardship on the property warranting the additional height requested. Staff now requests you conduct the public hearing and I will be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Would the petitioner please approach the podium?

I don't believe the petitioner was stood up and was sworn in. Could you swear him in now?

Yes, please. I should know this, but I don't remember it. Raise your right hand. Please respond after me. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yep.

All right, go ahead. So I don't have a formal presentation today. I thank Isaac and team for working with us these past few months.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, I don't have a formal presentation today. We've been working with Isaac and team the past few months to get through the ropes of the variance process and working with us on our perspective project. We live in at 151 North Wright Street. It's a home in the historic district. We moved there in 2021 and since then have gone through several waves of trying to restore the historic nature of the home. We were out for more than nine months this past year doing a full-scale renovation of the inside, seeking to restore everything from crown molding to original hardwood doors. It's been a labor of love. And the garage is kind of the last piece of our project. And really, the reason for it and the reason for the requested variance is not to get more space, per se. It's really to make sure that the ultimate structure looks like it belongs, an important aspect that we find of living in a historic district is preserving the nature and character. And we can certainly build a garage that complies with the technical strictures of the zoning code. It wouldn't look like it belongs. It would look like something that was kind of after the fact. And so really, the reason for the height requirement variance would be to build something that mirrors the exterior elevation of the existing home in terms of roofline, structure, general size. It'll, of course, be shorter. And we took the feedback from planning staff on reducing the height. And that's really it. We're looking to build something that looks cohesive, looks intentional, looks like it belongs with a historic residence.

Is that all? I'm sorry. Is that all? Cool. Thank you very much. Okay. So I'd like to hear from any member of the public present tonight here to speak on the case. Secretary Wright, has anyone signed up?

No one signed up.

Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the issue? Nope. All right. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for staff, the petitioner, or members of the public in this case? Please note that questions may not be directed to the petitioner or members of the public after the closure of the public hearing. Further comments should be saved for deliberations, which will occur after closure of the public hearing. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER LANGENBAUM?

I DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP, PLEASE. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR PROPERTY. MY DAUGHTER'S WENT TO ELLSWORTH, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR with that area, it's a beautiful home. Thank you. I'm just looking for clarification on the intended use of the second floor space, because the written hardship justification is described as office and storage, but the actual architectural plans show fitness equipment.

It would be either or both. I mean, principally an office, as I'm sure you know as having been in the historic district, You know, the homes are traditional in size, traditional in scope, smaller footprint. And, you know, we bought in 2021 kind of right on the cusp of COVID. I wasn't thinking work remote or work from home was going to be a thing for as long as it has been. And so, you know, I've certainly had the need for an office. I've been posting up on my kitchen table. And so a home office would be our primary consideration.

Okay, because the home office was just a small area. There's the home office and then a bathroom and then a very large area which said gym slash storage. But that's not mentioned in the actual description justification.

The genesis of that, frankly, is working with our architect and we didn't want to get through too much expense in terms of putting together architectural plans until we went through this process. And so when they had asked, what are you gonna use the second floor for? It was just home gym, office, storage, so on and so forth. So I think that's probably why it was in the architectural plans.

Thank you. Yeah, I just kind of wanted it noted on the record that there were discrepancies between some of the files. So that's all I was just looking for that clarification.

And I should just be very clear, the intent is not to use it as like an ADU or... like an accessory dwelling area.

Okay, super, thank you. And then my second question is for staff. And you mentioned that it's not required to go through the historic preservation. Can you just explain why it doesn't have to, given that it's in the historical district? Like why doesn't an accessory like this need to go through that? I'm more curious as to the process, because you would think that anything in the historic district should go through the process.

Sure, yeah. So for review of a certificate of appropriateness, there's sort of three tiers for improvements in the historic district. The first being no HPC review or COA review at all. And that's typically for things that are in the rear yard or not visible from the public right of way. So something like this is a detached accessory structure, particularly in the rear yard, doesn't require that extra purview where either staff or the HPC is taking a look at that. when you start to make modifications to the front facade or anything that faces a public right-of-way exclusive of private alleys, then those start to become an administrative COA, which is reviewed by staff. And then those HPC reviews, which are reviewed by our planning staff, as well as going in front of the Historic Preservation Commission.

So even though this one is on the corner and so the garage is seen from two streets, it's not considered, it still doesn't need the COA?

Correct. The language is detached garages are under that no COA review required. So despite it being a corner side yard and invisible from that corner street, it still does not require a COA.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Yes. Thank you. One quick question. Have you considered other alternatives other than 26 feet height? I'm sorry. Have you considered any other alternatives other than this change, like this request?

We have, yeah. We talked extensively with the architect about actually joining it to the home, which would bring it within the purview of the historic commission. There's frankly not a... great way to do that without chewing up a bunch of impervious coverage so taking away green space and doing it in a way that you know we think looks again kind of tasteful in keeping with the neighborhood we could certainly increase the footprint laterally adding more square footage at grade we felt that that had kind of a similar issue, which is it takes up green space on the lot, it increases impervious coverage, and frankly, it wouldn't be in keeping with the nature and character of the home and the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you. And a question to the staff. I believe, staff, you don't have any concern regarding alley access or drainage with this new extension, right?

AT THIS TIME, NO.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT?

I'M SORRY. I ASKED YOU TO STEP BACK UP. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO ASK QUESTIONS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS HERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE 26 OVER THE 18. YOU MENTIONED THAT you feel like the 26 compliments your roof line more so than it could. Could you maybe explain what you mean by that? I'm assuming your current structure is at the required height. Is that correct? Is it 18 feet?

The current garage?

The current garage.

It's, I think, 14 feet. And it was built as a coach house. So it's actually, in addition to being kind of below grade and having suffered, you know, 90-plus years of water damage and structural issues, it's not deep. So you can get a subcompact car into it, but not a lot of modern vehicles, which is also the reason we're looking to kind of take it down and build something new in lieu of retrofitting it.

Okay. So the 26 feet, you said, would be more complementary to your current roofline structure. Could you explain what you mean by that?

Yeah, absolutely. So the home was built in 1919. It's a craftsman style bungalow. And it's got a roofline called a cat slide roof, which is kind of in keeping with, it's pitched, but then it kind of eases down kind of like asymptotically on one side. And so what it requires is both depth and then height to get a pitch and a run that looks relatively similar. And so the intent would be to, with the garage, have a similar roof in terms of pitch and then in terms of how it slides down. And if we're limited to 18 feet, you really get, you get a box with a flat roof. So it just, aesthetically, frankly, it doesn't look like it, it looks like an afterthought, which is one of our primary concerns.

Okay, so I think I understand what you're saying. So at the 18 feet, you couldn't pitch it the same, the same way that your current roof line is because it would impede in your garage, your actual garage space. So you need the extra height in order to have it match the pitch of your existing home. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Commissioner McGowan?

Question for probably both staff and petitioner. With the increased height sought and that bulk, does that carry any differences with light in terms of shadows and impact on surrounding properties? Like are you putting a neighbor in the shade with that added height?

That's not something that we had particularly reviewed in staff looking at the plans, but we could take a look at that.

And I don't have a scientific answer on the shadow necessarily, but the intent would be to reorient. So most of the garages in the district face alleys. And so access to garage structures are via alley. Our home is built on the corner and the garage is actually accessed kind of directly from the curb. And so there's a really large asphalted area. And then the garage sits kind of back in the corner, right along our neighbor's lot line. So the intent would be to reorient it, like the other structures in the neighborhood, to have more traditional alley access as well.

And how about your neighbor to, that would be to the south, correct?

To the south. So it would create more side yard for them. Right now, the structure, I think, actually encroaches on their lot a little bit.

So, yeah, my question would be, does that added height, you know, going up to 26, is that going to be casting any shadows on, you know, at a greater degree than, and more shadow area on that neighbor than if the structure was at code?

It's a good question. I candidly don't know the answer. It will be set back further, so perhaps not. But I, sorry, I don't have a good answer for you.

Thank you.

Commissioner?

To clarify, if you were to go to the 18 feet, aesthetically you would not go for that roof line, is that correct? You would not be able to match your roof lines?

That's correct, yep.

Okay, and then I don't have the plans in front of me, so if you'll remind me, Your home faces west, I believe, right? And you have the roof, let's say if I'm facing that way, it's going this way. With the orientation of the garage, are the roof lines parallel or is it turned?

They're currently perpendicular.

Okay, so it would just be perpendicular as well?

It's currently such that if you're looking at the side of the house, you're staring at the front of the garage. And so the intent would be to reorient it so when you're standing at street side, you're seeing both roof lines.

Going the same way?

Going the same way.

OK, thank you. So it would pitch to the driveway, correct?

It would pitch.

Is it pitching to the driveway?

It would pitch easterly. Yeah, okay. Yeah, they would both pitch the same, both easterly.

Got it. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, yeah.

Question. I have one quick question for the city. Just to confirm, you have no objections to this?

Yeah, our position is somewhat neutral in the fact that we don't find there to be significant hardships warranting the request, but we do find that the petitioner has been accommodating our request to reduce the original height, as well as seeking a design that is complementary to the existing residence. Okay, thank you.

Okay, would the petitioner like to make any closing remarks?

I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S TIME. I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE DISCUSSION IN THIS PROCESS. PART OF THAT IS HOPEFULLY EXERCISING THAT DISCUSSION IN A WAY THAT ACHIEVES HARMONIOUS DEVELOPMENT. WE THINK THAT THIS IS THAT. THE REDESIGN OF THIS STRUCTURE REALLY IS IN KEEPING WITH you know, the nature and the character of the area. So we appreciate your discretion and your feedback.

Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV00392026. So moved.

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay, motion carries. Now, do any of the commissioners have any comments on the case? As a reminder, if you intend to recommend denial of the case, please state your reasons why. Are there any commissions?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just have a couple of comments on this. The response to standards that I mentioned before, it also lists a few neighboring properties that also have, you know, pretty big garages or carriage houses. And we received one public comment, you know, in the email about that as well. Those COMPARISONS MIGHT HAVE A SIMILAR LOOK AND FEEL GIVEN THE HEIGHT TO THIS CASE, BUT THEY ARE ALREADY LEGALLY NONCONFORMING HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSES, NOT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THIS ONE. AND SO THEY REALLY SHOULDN'T BE USED AS EXAMPLES FOR A HARDSHIP PRECEDENT. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE UP HERE ON PZC, WE DON'T VOTE ON PRECEDENT. EACH CASE THAT WE SEE IS UNIQUE AND HAS ITS OWN HARDSHIP. SO THAT KIND OF BRINGS ME BACK TO MY EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND THAT DISCREPANCY ON THE HARDSHIP DETAILS THERE. SO I DO AGREE WITH STAFF ON THIS. I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. BUT BASED ON THE VARIANCE, BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY, WITH THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT NOT ON THE HARDSHIP ARGUMENTS FILED.

THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

COMMENTS, ANY COMMENTS ON THE CASE?

I JUST KIND OF WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER LONGENBAUGH SAID. I'M REALLY TRYING TO FIND A WAY because this doesn't, in my mind, meet the hardship requirement. But I do agree that, and I'm glad you explained the need for the pitch in the roof and the uniqueness in this historic preservation area. So despite my initial reaction, I will be voting in favor of this. So thank you.

Okay. I want to thank you very much for making those accommodations and working with staff to come to, I think, a really good plan. It's already been mentioned that there was one letter of opposition submitted online. I do want to note that no one is here this evening to speak out in opposition or there have been no other neighbors submitted any other letters. I think the plans are great. I think it'll be a really good, you know, nice update that a lot. So I'm happy to support it. Okay, now Commissioner McGowan, would you please read the motion?

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0039-2026, a request for variance to section 6-2-10-3 of the Naperville Municipal Code to construct an approximately 26 foot tall detached garage at 151 North Wright Street.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Secretary Wright, please connect the roll call.

Abu Baker. I agree. Castagnoli. I agree. Langenbach. Agree with the motion. McDaniel. I agree. McGowan.

I agree.

Namas.

I agree.

And Wright, I agree. Motion passes 7-0. Congratulations. Thank you very much.

Next case on tonight's agenda is DEV 0035-2026. Public hearing is now open. Sarah Kapitsky from staff will present the case.

Thank you and good evening. The subject property for DEV 0035-2026 consists of an approximately one and a half acre lot known as Lot 8 of the Railway Plaza PUD. It is improved with a parking lot previously intended for private commuter parking spaces. The petitioner plans to redevelop the site with Weston Ridge Apartments, which will include 65 microunits. To do so, a major change to the Railway Plaza PUD is requested, along with deviations to increase the permitted density and height and allow for a wall sign on a residential property. The property's underlying zoning designation is R3, which allows multifamily residential as a permitted use. However, the original Railway Plaza PUD placed commercial limitations on the property that remain in effect despite the R3 zoning designation. Petitioner seeks approval of a major change to the PUD to remove the commercial limitations previously applied to the property. The subject property has not been utilized for commercial purposes and no commercial development has been proposed or developed on the site. Per the petition, the major change will convert the underperforming property to a residential development that supports housing diversity and affordability, walkability and resident proximity to transit, all of which are goals that are identified in the city's land use master plan. Three deviations are requested regarding density. The municipal code permits a density of one unit per 2,600 square feet of lot area, which would allow 25 units to be developed on the property. Petitioner seeks approval of a deviation to allow a density of one unit per 1,021 square feet for a total of 65 micro unit apartments. The development petition outlines that an increase in density is appropriate for the property since it is within a mixed use area with access to the Route 59 train station and PACE bus services. The density deviation also relates to the affordability of the units. Petitioner also seeks approval of a deviation to increase the maximum building height from 43 feet to approximately 47 feet. In support of the deviation, the City's Land Use Master Plan identifies areas where residential is adjacent to non-residential as suitable locations for height deviations to be considered. The subject property's location near the Route 59 train station also supports a greater building height as part of a transit-oriented development pattern. Lastly, petitioner seeks approval of a deviation to install wall signage to identify the north facing entrance of Weston Ridge Apartments. The proposed sign is intended to function as building identification similar to address numbers. However, it exceeds standard building addressing with a stylized appearance and additional characters. The proposed design is appropriately sized on the facade and staff notes the subject property is located between commercial and industrial uses. Therefore, the signage will not be visible to any residences. Tonight we recommend you conduct the public hearing and will remain available for any questions.

Okay, will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening, my name is Caitlin Chuck with the law firm Rosenhoff & Whitaker here on behalf of Weston Ridge LLC. With me this evening I have Eric Sachs who's the property owner and developer. I have our architect, our civil engineer, and our landscape architect, so we're all available for any questions that you might have. Subject property we're discussing this evening is about one and a half acres located just south of North Aurora Road behind some existing commercial uses. WITH REGARDS TO EXISTING CONTEXT, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH AND EAST, INDUSTRIAL TO THE WEST, THE ROUTE 59 TRADE STATION TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE ALSO SOME RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS EAST OF FAIRWAY DRIVE AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTH AURORA ROAD. I ALWAYS LIKE TO START WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY FOR CONTEXT. I KNOW SARAH JUST TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS LOT 8 UNDER THE RAILWAY PLAZA COMMERCIAL CENTER MIXED USE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT. The Railway Plaza PUD was approved in 1998, and under that approval, the property was zoned R3 PUD. All uses permitted were uses permitted under B2 zoning, also including hotels, auto centers, leasing centers, banquet centers, nursing homes, and amusement facilities. So for the sake of this presentation, we'll call those the approved uses for the site. In 2009, the city rezoned the property from R3 to B3, along with a major change to the PUD in order to allow the property to be used for 167 commuter parking spaces. As part of those approvals, there was a reversion provision stating that any future use of the property for any use other than the parking lot that was approved a part of that major change to the PUD would render those approvals null and void, and the zoning would revert back to the R3 zoning. So that's why we're at R3 zoning today. There's no doubt that the lack of need for commuter parking is the direct result of COVID-19, now that working from home and hybrid work schedules have become the norm following the pandemic. So with that, the subject property is vacant, remains unoccupied, and provides zero net benefit to the community today. So as such, we are before you tonight requesting a major change to the Railway Plaza PUD to request approval of a 65 micro unit apartment building on the property. As I mentioned, by way of not using the property for commuter parking, the zoning reverts back to R3 under the 2009 approvals. Under R3 zoning, multifamily uses are permitted, but again, those approved uses that I mentioned from the approval back in 1998 still exist. So to simplify this, all the documentation, we're seeking to remove those approved uses and proceed with the permitted uses under the reverted R3 zoning, which again would allow for the proposed apartment building. So with regards to the site plan, we're really working within the parameters of the existing parking lot and that infrastructure. We have access maintained on the north end of the site in two different locations up in the northwest corner and then along the east property line. Both provide access to existing cross-access easements under the PUD. We have access maintained, or I'm sorry, we have sidewalk connectivity to the south, which will be maintained to provide residents with pedestrian access to the Route 59 train station and the Pace bus stop. We're proposing 73 parking spaces, which equates to just over one space per unit, which is very consistent with other apartment buildings that have been recently approved or constructed in town. Community amenities are located along the western side of the building and will include an outdoor patio with lounge chairs, grilling stations, a fire pit, and outdoor seating. The outdoor area will be landscaped for privacy. The building will also have a lobby, lounge area, community party room, fitness center, storage lockers, and will also have bike storage on site. Perimeter parking lot landscaping enhancements will be provided around the property in order to make sure we're creating that welcoming and warm environment, as well as provide appropriate transitions and buffering from all the existing surrounding land uses. This plan also depicts the proposed landscaping around that outdoor amenity area to, again, create a sense of privacy. We want to make sure that residents can enjoy that area. We don't want them to feel like they're sitting in a parking lot. We want that to be a nice usable outdoor area and space. A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE WITH THIS PROJECT. ON A BROAD LEVEL, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A NATIONAL HOUSING SHORTAGE. THE LACK OF HOUSING IS DRIVING PRICE POINTS UP EVERYWHERE, WHETHER IT'S FOR SALE OR RENT. LOCALLY, NAPERVILLE HAD ITS OWN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN 2020, WHICH NOTED NAPERVILLE WOULD REQUIRE BETWEEN 6,900 and 8,600 new housing units by 2025, which we've passed, and between 11,700 units and 13,000 units by 2040. The problem remains the lack of supply to meet demand, and the only way to solve it is to provide more supply. As of right now, we are not on track to meet these numbers. With that, micro-unit communities have been identified as a creative solution to A, increasing the number of dwelling units to help bridge the housing shortage gap, and B, provide an attainable and non-rent burdened rental housing. These have actually become increasingly popular in America's cities and suburbs. The units, again, provide an attainable lower rent, privacy, and a sense of community in the common area spaces. In addition, another overlooked component of this is senior housing. So recent studies have identified the growing need for senior housing, especially having the 55 and up age range being the fastest growing demographic in Naperville. So with that, microunit communities provide seniors with attainable rent, maintenance-free living, access to transportation, and an opportunity to avoid isolation through community amenity areas. In addition, we're also proposing these unique ground floor GROUND FOUR LEVEL ENTRY UNITS THAT HAVE DIRECT PRIVATE OUTDOOR ENTRANCES. THIS WILL ENHANCE THE ACCESSIBILITY AND USABILITY OF RESIDENTS OF VARYING MOBILITY LEVELS AND AGE. WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE TO INDIVIDUALS SEEKING TO LIVE IN AND WORK IN NEIGHBORVILLE WHO ARE OTHERWISE PRICED OUT OF THE COMMUNITY. THAT INCLUDES YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, COMMUTERS, EMPTY NESTERS SEEKING SMALLER AND MORE ACCESSIBLE RESIDENCES AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE. So with that, we're trying to provide a creative solution to assist with the national housing shortage while also increasing the city's diversity in housing, catering to a number of different types of people. Specifically, I just mentioned commuters. I'd like to point out that the site is very strategically located to thrive. We have the BNSF Route 59 train station immediately south. In addition, the Pace Bus Line number 559 has a stop on North Aurora Road, and there's another stop at the Route 59 train station. Petitioner is constructing sidewalks for interconnectivity throughout the development in order to enhance pedestrian connectivity to Weston Ridge, which ultimately can lead us up to North Aurora Road to get to the Pace bus stop up there. And then the existing connections to the Route 59 train station will be preserved. Remembering this was a commuter parking lot since 2009, so people were consistently using it, walking to the train station, no issue there. THE PROXIMITY TO ROUTE 59 AND ALL THE CONVENIENCE USES, DINING AND RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT SHOULD ALSO NOT BE OVERLOOKED WITH REGARDS TO THE LOCATION. WITH REGARDS TO ARCHITECTURE, OUR GOAL HERE WAS SIMPLE. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING THAT FITS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA. UNDERSTANDING THE SURROUNDING AREAS OF THE PUD ARE GENERALLY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT INTO THIS DESIGN. So with that, we're providing a more urban, industrial building with a loft-style feel. We worked with staff to see that the color of the brick would complement the area. And we also have black hardy fiber cement panels in order to break up the masonry to try to reinforce that urban nature of the design. The rendering also paints a nice picture in terms of visualizing what those ground level units with the private outdoor entries will look like. This is a super unique feature that we typically don't see on apartment projects. In total, 11 units will have that feature. This is just another pretty picture of the rendering. In addition, I think it's worth mentioning that the whole building will fully comply with the Illinois Accessibility Code by way of incorporating both Type A and Type B Accessible units in addition to those ground level entry units will also of course have access to all levels via an elevator and the amenity and outdoor spaces will be wheelchair accessible Lastly in addition to enhancing our housing stock this new apartment community will bring significant economic impact Via local spending and support to the nearby commercial areas so we expect to see a generation in sales tax revenue food and beverage tax grocery tax income tax, and of course, we're supporting the Pace and Metro. So overall, having a nice local economic benefit to the project. So with that, I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration. Our whole team is available for any questions that you have.

Thank you. I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present to speak tonight. In this case, Secretary Wright, please call our first speaker.

No one signed up.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak in this case? All right. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for staff, the petitioner, or members of the public on this case? Please note that questions may not be directed to the petitioner or members of the public after the closure of the public hearing. Further comments should be saved for deliberations, which will occur after the closure of public hearing. Any questions?

Yes, I do. Thank you. This looks great. I love the accessible icon in the presentation. We thought you might. Yes. Thank you so much. I just have one question actually. Regarding the parking, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS SPILL OVER IF PARKING DOES BECOME AN ISSUE? WILL THEY BE ABLE TO PARK ON THE STREET OR JUST HOW WILL THAT BE ADDRESSED?

SO I MEAN I'M SURE YOU SAW THE STAFF REPORT PEOPLE OVER PARKING ACT WE CAN'T RESTRICT PARKING OR I'M SORRY NOT RESTRICT REQUIRE CERTAIN PARKING ANYMORE. THAT BEING SAID WE STILL NEED TO RENT THIS AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RENTERS ARE HAPPY. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH ONE SPACE PER UNIT AND THEN WE HAVE EIGHT ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING SPACES. In looking at a project like Vantage, Vantage I think got approved one space per unit with maybe, I think it's very similar. It's like six or eight guest parking spaces. And we've been kind of following Vantage to see if they've ever needed overflow parking or anything like that, and they've never been fully parked. So we don't anticipate that being an issue. Of course, we're happy to work with staff if it ever becomes an issue. I know there's not really a reversion that's going to be put in here because we can't require certain parking. But just kind of studying all the other apartment buildings in town, one space per unit, especially for these. These are technically one bed, but they're very small. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT NOT BEING A STUDIO AND A ONE BED IS THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC WALL AND A DOOR. THE BED DOESN'T SIT IN THE LIVING ROOM SO THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S STILL A ONE BED. THAT ONE SPACE PER UNIT FOR ONE BED HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY ADEQUATE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU CHAIR. GREAT PROJECT. I LOVE THIS PROJECT. IT'S A TRANSIT FRIENDLY PROJECT. BUT I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. IS THIS SPACE CURRENTLY USED FOR COMMUTER PARKING IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM?

NOT ANYMORE, NO. IT'S COMPLETELY VACANT, AND HONESTLY, THE DEMAND JUST ISN'T THERE ANYMORE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PANDEMIC.

OKAY, OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN, ANY QUESTIONS?

YES. WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING AND THE DENSITY, ONE THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS with the targeted tenants. You might have young people just starting out or you know, people at the other end, empty nesters, and you might have two people. The realities of this location is, you know, you gotta have a cart. And I know from personal experience with young people starting out, you know, for a variety of reasons, it might not be income qualification, but they have other places to spend their money, and might choose, you know, a smaller one bedroom and double up. And it can be a challenge to find a one bedroom that can accommodate two cars. And is there any way to increase the parking and how will that be allocated? A second question related on size of the units are the first floor with the mobility features, are those the largest units in the building and are the apartments on two, three and four YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER? BECAUSE THE LARGEST ONE IS, WHAT, 640 SQUARE FEET? JUST ABOUT, YEP.

OKAY.

SO, I MEAN, I'LL ADDRESS THE FIRST QUESTION FIRST. REALLY NOT ANYWHERE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING ON-SITE BECAUSE WE'RE INCORPORATING THOSE FIRST FOUR GROUND LEVEL UNITS WITH THE PRIVATE ENTRANCES. IF WE WEREN'T INCORPORATING THAT FEATURE TO THE PROJECT, WE COULD PUT MORE PARKING along the building, just like Vantage has. But we felt this was a more desirable feature. And again, just historically, the projects that we've seen come through, the parking has been adequate at all the recent apartment projects in town. Sizes, our architect could speak to that a little bit more eloquently. But I believe they're a little bit larger for the corner, correct? Yes. So the larger units are on the corners of the buildings. The smaller units are interior to the building.

Is there any consideration to subterranean parking? What was that? To put in a basement floor, to put in parking below the building.

No consideration for that. Our stormwater is all underground and existing. Thank you.

Commissioner Wright. All right, sorry to harp on the parking again, but they've asked my questions. I guess what I would ask is, would you consider partnering with a surrounding facility to perhaps do some sort of overflow parking if necessary? And did I hear you say that you can't restrict the number of parking spaces by unit?

By law, you cannot require a certain number of parking spaces. FOR A SITE LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC TRANSIT. SO SINCE WE ARE SO CLOSE TO THE ROUTE 59 TRAIN STATION, BY WAY OF STATE LAW, THE CITY IS NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE SITE.

BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO RESTRICT YOUR RENTERS TO ONE CAR PER UNIT?

YES.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAYBE YOU'VE CONSIDERED?

WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT. And again, I trust- If that's something that needs to be in the lease, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, and I trust that you are probably right because you do this for a living. So I believe you. I just, you're right. It's very limited overflow parking. And if, as Commissioner McGowan said, if you have five people with a significant other with a car, it's gonna be extremely tight. Sure. Okay, thank you. Understood.

I guess my one question for staff. It hasn't been mentioned, traffic concerns. I go over that way twice a year. One, if my car breaks down. And two, to get my emissions tested by the state. I trust that there's, it hasn't been raised as a concern or an issue. I know I didn't see any type of traffic study listed. Would you maybe speak to that as to what would trigger that need for a study?

Hi, Jonathan Tolchak with the engineering services team. So they had submitted a traffic memo along with their submittal that staff had reviewed. At this time, we did not see any concern based on the evaluation that they had provided us. Specifically, if there's during peak times, they're proposing that this development would lower the amount of amount of traffic that's going on compared to the existing use. So at this time we did not have any concerns with traffic. Okay.

If I could jump in on that too. So to kind of elaborate what he was saying, we did a little evaluation to see what traffic generated under the commuter parking lot when it was at its highest capacity. And so what our building will actually generate will be lower than that on a daily basis. DURING PEAK HOURS, WE'RE EXPECTED TO GENERATE BETWEEN 19 AND 29 TRIPS DURING PEAK HOURS, WHICH IS LIKE DROPS IN THE BUCKET COMPARED TO NORTH AURORA AND 59. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. INTO THE TRAFFIC, DOES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE STRIP MALL, THE OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES A good number of them are vacant right now. But does the traffic take into account, let's say those were in use. For example, there was a dance studio on the corner. And I know from going there myself that the traffic could be kind of tight if you were taking the kid to dance and everyone was going in for their admissions testing. And Weston Ridge, you'd actually back up quite a bit. Sure. And then second question, if you want to address that one first.

So the traffic memo actually addresses existing conditions too, so it takes it all into consideration.

Okay. And then with the industrial properties to the west, were those in existence and operation under the original zoning? So I'm not sure if they're part of our PUD.

Hold on, let's pull it up. No, our PUD is this area here. Sorry, it extends over here. These properties are not part of our PUD, so I can't speak to the permitted uses under, if they're under a PUD. It looks like they're just zoned industrial, so they would just be required to, permitted uses under the industrial zoning district.

IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OR CONCERN REGARDING THOSE INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE WEST, WHICH ARE A COUPLE OF AUTOMOTIVE-RELATED BUSINESSES, AND THEN THE EMISSIONS TESTING, AND THEN IF YOU GO OVER WEST, THAT SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, truck repair or, I mean, there were lines and lines of semis. Is there any, have those uses come into development since all of this was planned? And is there any conflict between, you know, we have this beautiful apartment building and, you know, people are like, well, now I'm living next door to an industrial use that's, you know, a lot of automotive and commercial vehicles. Is that any concern? Has that been examined?

We haven't heard any concerns from those business owners over there. I mean, the ones within the 300 feet parameter did receive notice of the public hearing. We don't anticipate there being any issues in terms of compatibility. I mean, we do have Weston Ridge in between our property and the industrial uses. Again, we'll have some nice landscape screening, kind of creating a delineation between the uses. And anybody who's coming to rent here will take in in consideration the surrounding area and circumstances. But again, we feel this is a good transitional use, being so close to the train station and trying to make sure that this is a transit-oriented area.

Thank you.

Okay, I would now like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV0035-2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries. Do any of the commissioners have any comments on the case? As a reminder, if you intend to recommend denial of the case, please state your response or reasons why. Any comments, Commissioner Longenbaum?

I think you were first, though.

Ladies first.

Thank you. Yeah, I just have a couple of comments about affordability. The petition and the presentation both mention attainability, but there are no restrictions tied to that. So while I'm sure this will be added to the council catalog of affordable wins, it is not binding, which is kind of disappointing since there's just been a whole lot of talk about affordability in town. That said, I enthusiastically support this. I love the micro apartments. I think it's awesome. I visited it on Saturday and it is a totally appropriate place for density and height. So I do not have any issues with any of the variances. And I really like that it's gonna be using a very underutilized space. It's very walkable to Metra and very walkable to all of the places along Route 59. So I think it's, actually going to be, it's going to be awesome. So yes, I will support this. Thank you.

Commissioner Wright. I should start going first because she always steals my, she always steals my comments, but no, I completely agree with her. I absolutely love this project. I love where it is. I love the way that the project looks. Um, you know, I'm excited about the attainable aspects, but I also have the same concerns. I just want to make sure that, um, THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS AND I HOPE THAT THAT ATTAINABLE PRICE POINT CARRIES THROUGH THE WHOLE PROJECT AND DOESN'T GET TWISTED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. SO VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF DENSITY THAT NAPERVILLE NEEDS IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE ITS HOUSING STOCK. SO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE WERE NO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, NO ONE HERE THIS EVENING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE CASE. ALSO, WE'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS A LETTER SUBMITTED BY DISTRICT 204. I THINK IT WAS SOMEWHAT OF A SUPPORTIVE, NON-SUPPORTIVE LETTER, BECAUSE THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD, I THINK. which is always nice to see. You know, I think this case is just a very good example of why local review matters. The proposal clearly has gone through the process, staff, public input now being considered by us. and on the city council. I like the other commissioners really do believe that this represents a very positive step forward towards providing more attainable housing options to our community. And I think also cases like this demonstrate that local governments can successfully address housing needs through a very well thought through a planned collaboration type of process and that we don't need a very, what I would say, heavy-handed type of legislation, that we can do it, and we've done it before, and we're doing it again. So very excited to support it, happy to support it, and congratulations. Commissioner Abu-Baker, would you please read the motion?

Sure. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DEV-0035-2026, A MAJOR CHANGE TO LOT 8 OF THE RAILWAY PLAZA COMMERCIAL P.U.D. AND DEVIATIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT, DENSITY, AND WALL SINAGE REGULATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 540 WESTERN RIDGE DRIVE.

CAN I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. SECRETARY WRIGHT, PLEASE CONDUCT THE ROLL CALL.

ABU-BEKAR. I AGREE. CASANOLI.

I AGREE.

LANGENBACH. I AGREE. MCDANIEL. I AGREE. MCGOWAN.

I AGREE.

NAMES.

I AGREE.

AND WRIGHT, I AGREE. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

CONGRATULATIONS. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR JULY 15, 2026, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2026, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. SO MOVED.

Second.

All right. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. No old business, new business. I'd like to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. Oh my gosh. Great job. Great.