Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 17th, 2026 to order. Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Abu Baker. Present. Bonzo.

Here.

Castagnoli. Here. Longenbaugh.

Here.

McDaniel. Here. Namas.

Here.

Robbins.

Here.

Wright is here. Student Rep. Rodman.

Here.

Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Great, thank you. The first order of business tonight is the public forum. During the public forum, members of the public have the opportunity to address the Planning and 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 signed up under public forum? No one signed up. Great. Our next order of business is public hearings. We have three public hearings scheduled for tonight's meeting. For each hearing, we'll begin with a staff presentation or introduction, followed by the petitioner's presentation. We will then take public testimony to ensure that we have the opportunity to hear from each person speaking. 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 the comments made by any 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 the Planning and Zoning Commission's deliberation. I will now swear in any of the members of the public wishing to speak. Those who wish to provide testimony, please stand up. Please raise your right hand and respond, I do. I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. THE FIRST CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS DEV-0030-2026. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. THERESE IGNER FROM STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE.

THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THERESE IGNER WITH THE CITY'S PLANTING SERVICES TEAM. DEV-0030-2026 IS A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN AMUSEMENT USE IN THE B-2 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT. TASTEBUDS KITCHEN PLANS TO LOCATE WITHIN THE WESTRIDGE COURT SHOPPING CENTER ADJACENT TO BLOCK 59, A MIXED-USE DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION IN THE CITY. THE PROPOSED CULINARY ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS IS ANTICIPATED TO SUPPORT NEARBY SHOPPING AND DINING ESTABLISHMENTS BY CREATING A NEARBY ENTERTAINMENT DESTINATION FOR PATRONS. THE VENUE OPERATES BY PRESCHEDULED BOOKINGS WHICH PREVENTS LARGE GATHERINGS AND MINIMIZES TRAFFIC IMPACTS. IN THE DEVELOPMENT PETITION, THE PETITIONER STATES THAT OTHER TASTEBUDS KITCHEN LOCATIONS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED INTO MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS SIMILAR TO WESTRIDGE COURT. THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR IMPEED THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. THE CITY'S LAND USE MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIES THE FUTURE PLACE TYPE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS URBAN CENTER. Staff finds the proposed use to be compatible with this designation as entertainment uses are identified as a primary use in this place type. Staff is supportive of the conditional use request and finds it will complement the surrounding retail and dining establishments. Staff now requests that you conduct the public hearing and I will be available for questions.

Great, thank you. Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening. Hi, my name is Jackie Burton, and I am here representing Tastebuds Kitchen. OK, great. I think Therese did a great job in really sharing why we're here and what we're requesting for the conditional use for us to be able to operate at Westridge Court, so thank you. Tastebuds Kitchen is a culinary entertainment business. We're really looking to foster community engagement and social gatherings by offering cooking classes for ages 2 to 99, where we can make anything from pastas to sushi to cupcakes and more. And if you've ever taken a painting class, you can imagine that instead of paint, we would use food. And at the end, you get to eat your masterpiece. So that's really what we're looking to do. In terms of offering our events, we'd be offering summer camps, date nights, birthday parties, caregiver me type classes. For our corporate businesses around, we would love to be able to offer team building and corporate events as well. So thank you for the opportunity for us to come in and request this. And we would look forward and welcome the opportunity to join the businesses within Naperville and the other tenants within Westridge Court. Thank you.

AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. SECRETARY WRIGHT, PLEASE CALL THE FIRST SPEAKER.

NO ONE'S ON THERE, MADAM CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? NO? 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 THESE 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 DELIBERATION, WHICH WILL OCCUR AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER NAMEZ? NEW SPEAKER NO QUESTIONS. NEW SPEAKER NO QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER NO QUESTIONS. NEW SPEAKER ALL RIGHT.

Commissioner Longenbaugh. Thank you very much. I'm not sure if this is for staff or for you, but in February, there was a taste buds kitchen that was approved for a liquor license and with city council, you know, for that liquor license. Is this the same establishment that just moved locations or a completely different one entirely? Okay. I can address.

Yes, this is the same establishment. We were unable to move forward with that location when we were looking to move towards that liquor license, but we were lucky enough to be able to find this location here at Westridge Court. So do you still need the liquor license?

And did it transfer with you? Or do you have to go through the whole process again?

My understanding from that group, when I did let them know that we were not moving forward with the River Road location, was that I would not have to go through that process again. Oh, okay. Great. Thank you so much.

All right. Commissioner Abubaker.

Thank you, Chair. Question related to parking. I see that you'll be hosting birthday parties over there, late nights, corporate events. How many parking spots are available, and do you see any concerns with parking?

Parking, I don't believe, came up at all in terms of how the business operates in general. And we are event-based, so there's no walk-in types of customers coming in.

I CAN ALSO ANSWER THIS FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT. SO WE DID, WHEN THIS PROPOSAL CAME THROUGH, WE DID REQUEST A TENANT ROSTER FOR WEST RIDGE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED AND BASED ON THE CURRENT TENANT MIX AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TENANT SPACE, A PARKING VARIANCE WAS NOT IDENTIFIED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NO QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY CLOSING REMARKS? NO. ALL RIGHT, I WILL MOVE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEB-0030-2026. SO MOVED. CAN I HAVE A SECOND?

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE CASE? AS A REMINDER, IF YOU INTEND TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS CASE, PLEASE STATE YOUR REASON WHY. I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER LANGENBAUM.

NO?

OKAY.

NO.

I'M LOOKING TO JOIN.

Fantastic. We would love to have you. No question.

Okay. Any other comments?

Very excited. I think it's a great addition and I wish you luck.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

I as well. All right. Commissioner Abu-Baker, could 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-0030-2026, A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN AMUSEMENT ESTABLISHMENT IN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2603 AURORA AVENUE, SUITE NUMBER 119. THANK YOU. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND.

SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND.

ABBA-BAKER? I AGREE. BONZO?

I AGREE.

CASTOGNOLI?

I AGREE.

LANGENBAUGH? I AGREE WITH THE MOTION. MCDANIEL? I AGREE. NAMES?

AGREE.

ROBINS?

I AGREE.

AND WRIGHT, I AGREE WITH THE MOTION. MOTION PASSES.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS DEV-0175-2025. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ANNA FRANCO FROM STAFF WILL PRESENT THE CASE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. ANNA FRANCO WITH THE CITY'S PLANNING SERVICES TEAM. THE 25-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FERRY ROAD EAST OF ROUTE 59 AND IS PART OF THE MONARCH LANDING PUD. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED OCI PUD AND IS PREDOMINANTLY VACANT EXCEPT FOR A SURFACE-LEVEL PARKING LOT. THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO MONARCH LANDING TO THE WEST, THE CITY GATE CAMPUS TO THE SOUTH, AND THE PRAIRIE POINT CORPORATE PARK TO THE EAST. AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN THE CITY OF WARRENVILLE TO THE NORTH. IN 2014 MONARCH LANDING REQUESTED ZONING AND SUBDIVISION RELIEF FROM THE CITY IN ORDER TO DOWNSIZE ITS PLANNED CAMPUS. THIS APPROVAL REQUIRED POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS TO OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE PUD BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PURSUANT TO THIS APPROVAL, THE PETITIONER MI HOMES REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE PUD TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH A 171 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF 32 TOWN HOME BUILDINGS TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH GATE OF NEIGHBORVILLE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES ABOUT 10.6 ACRES OR 42% OPEN SPACE IN THE FORM OF STORM WATER FACILITIES WITH WALKING PATHS, PRESERVED WETLANDS AND PASSIVE SEATING AREAS AND MEETS THE MINIMUM 30% OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. IN ADDITION TO THIS OPEN SPACE, THE PETITIONER PROPOSES TO DEDICATE 2.59 ACRES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NEIGHBORVILLE PARK DISTRICT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC PARK AND COMBINED WITH AN ADDITIONAL .6 ACRES DEDICATED FROM MONARCH LANDING, THE TOTAL PARK SITE WILL ENCOMPASS 3.24 ACRES. WITH THE MAJOR CHANGE REQUEST, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING A PUD DEVIATION TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 18 FEET. THE DEVIATION APPLIES TO 10 OF THE 32 BUILDINGS IN THE COMMUNITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCLUSION OF THE TAYLOR END UNIT, WHICH IS A TWO-STORY END UNIT THAT FEATURES A SIDE-LOADED GARAGE. THE PETITIONER ALSO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN THE OCI ZONE. STAFF HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH THE CITY'S LAND USE MASTER PLAN AND THE NAPERVILLE I-88 CORRIDOR STRATEGY. THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIES THE FUTURE PLACE TYPE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS REGIONAL CENTER. WHILE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS ARE PERMITTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE OCI DISTRICT, THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS A PRIMARY OR SUPPORTING USE WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER DESIGNATION. STAFF FINDS THAT MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS A SUPPORTING USE IN THE REGIONAL CENTER PLACE TYPE, IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN AND BETTER SUITED TO THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. Staff also finds that multifamily residential would better align with the adopted planning objectives for the I-88 corridor as outlined in the Naperville I-88 corridor strategy. Additionally, while staff finds the single-family attached to be generally compatible with Monarch Landing to the west and the single-family residential neighborhood in Warrenville to the north, STAFF DOES NOT FIND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRAIRIE POINT CORPORATE PARK LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES LIKE MANUFACTURING, STORAGE OFFICE, AND SPORTING FACILITIES. STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED INTENSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CORPORATE PARK INCLUDING THE REZONING OF ORI ZONED PROPERTIES TO THE I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED. HOWEVER, FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED NORTH GATE DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE CONCERNS WITH EXPANDED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. SHOULD THE REQUESTED DEVELOPMENT BE APPROVED, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PETITIONER BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A DISCLOSURE TO FUTURE HOMEOWNERS WITHIN NORTHGATE NOTING THAT FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT INTENSIFICATION WITHIN THE CORPORATE PARK IS PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND USE MASTER PLAN AND ORI AND I ZONING DISTRICTS. FURTHER, WHILE STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXPAND THE CITY'S HOUSING SUPPLY, THE PROPOSED NORTHGATE COMMUNITY IS A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT, AS NOTED IN THE NDP CORRESPONDENTS. Finally, staff has concerns with the location of the public park adjacent to Ferry Road and finds the park would be more appropriately located farther north within the development. In lieu of the park being relocated, staff has asked for additional berming along Ferry Road. Staff does acknowledge that the Naperville Park District is satisfied with the park location as proposed. IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S CONCERNS, THE PETITIONER HAS REVISED THE PLANS TO ENHANCE ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION AMONG THE TOWN HOME BUILDINGS, INCORPORATE VISITABILITY FEATURES AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ALONG COMFORT DRIVE. THE PETITIONER AND THE PARK DISTRICT HAVE ALSO REVISED THE PARK PLANS TO RELOCATE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FARTHER NORTH AND PROVIDE THE REQUESTED BURMING. WHILE STAFF APPRECIATES THESE REVISIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE EFFORTS MADE TO IMPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT, STAFF'S PRIMARY CONCERNS REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REMAIN. THE PETITIONER HAS PROVIDED A WRITTEN RESPONSE AS TO THEIR FINDINGS REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE AND PLAN CONSISTENCY. SHOULD THE PZC DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PETITIONER ALSO REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUBDIVISION AND TEMPORARY USE FOR MARKETING SIGNAGE THAT EXCEEDS CODE ALLOWANCES. PLEASE NOTE THESE REQUESTS ARE NOT REVIEWED BY THE PZC AND WILL BE REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC MEETING. TONIGHT WE ASK THAT YOU CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. WILL THE PETITIONER PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

Good evening. My name is Greg Collins. I'm with MI Homes. Very excited to be here. This is kind of a bittersweet property for us. If you didn't know, we've got our offices right across the street at City Gates Center. So as a home builder local to the Chicagoland area, as well as the city of Naperville, We've got a vast experience, both in the city as well as all of Chicagoland. And this one is kind of close to our heart. Ironically, I've got an area president that actually looks over at the property. So if this gets to the point where we're actually developing it, it should be interesting for us to, from a production standpoint and construction standpoint, be able to produce and perform. THE EXPERIENCE OF MI HOMES, THE OPPORTUNITY HERE WE THINK IS TERRIFIC. I THINK THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU WILL HEAR AND SEE, THE EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT FOR BOTH THE LAND USE, THE ARCHITECTURE, HOW THE SITE LAYS OUT, TRAFFIC, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, EVERYTHING THAT GOES INTO OUR PRESENTATION I THINK WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT, WAS WELL STUDIED. WE HAVE EVERYONE HERE FROM OUR TEAM TO BE ABLE TO Provide that testimony so that you can make a great decision. Just to give you a brief history about who we are, as a division, we've been in Chicago for almost 20 years. We grew organically here. We're based out of Columbus, Ohio as a national builder. But the footprint here started in one office with four employees. But we've grown to now over 120 employees and, again, called Naperville our home. We right now operate in between 15 on an annual basis between 15 and 20 communities a year. And we continue to source and look for opportunities within the Chicagoland area. And this being one of them. different communities, different geographies, zip codes that we actually operated, run the vast geography from well up north in Highland Park, where we just acquired a 220 unit subdivision called the Bowery, which has a unique infill opportunity. And just to put it in perspective when I say infill, what we're seeing here, what we're seeing across the country actually in a lot of our more suburban and urban areas, Chicagoland being one of them, the vast majority of our communities that we are currently building and operating in, or we see ourselves in the next five years with both the opportunities that we are underwriting and investigating, are these infill locations. Less and less are we moving west and taking the next farm or the next farm. Right now, you're seeing a complete retrenchment back to housing where I think housing should be. I think we spent the better part of 20 years, me starting out in the business in 1999, where the thought process was to follow a corridor and keep moving west. I'm not sure where we were moving west from, when ironically we were moving away from population centers, urban centers with employment, as well as hospitals and general everyday services. So we are seeing a kind of resurgence back to where those opportunities are. And ironically, real estate a lot of times is static, and a lot of times it isn't static. But you'll see, and you're seeing with this particular property, we could argue it could be several different things. And you've seen several different proposals. So we are looking at those opportunities, this being one of them. But everything you see on the screen here WHERE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD CALL INFILL, A LITTLE POCKET THAT REQUIRED SMALLER COMMUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY A BIG MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY, MORE UNIQUE CHARACTER IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN AND HOW DO YOU TREAT THOSE TOGETHER TO MAKE A COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT. SO THE TOWNS OF FARMINGDALE AND WOODRIDGE, THAT'S 77 UNITS. LIKE I SAID, PYLUM PARK, THAT'S 220. EVERLY TRACE, I THINK ROUNDS OUT ABOUT 78. AND THEN LOCKLEY PARK AND PLAINFIELD 169 so from a unit count density and appropriateness we can kind of spray to all fields we also have our current experience we're about 50 percent attached or townhomes if you will all for sale as with the rest of it being primarily single family for sale so you can see out of the 800 or so units that we're closing on an annual basis, 400 plus are in that attached world, which means that's, again, that seeking out, looking for those infill opportunities, and this being one of them. So we're excited, and I'll turn it over to Eric.

Good evening. Eric Prechtel with Russanova and Whitaker 445 Jackson Avenue. I'm Suite 200 here in Naperville, obviously here as well with the MI team. As Greg mentioned, very excited to be here. And just first and foremost, as always, thank you for your time and consideration this evening. So jumping right into the subject property, as Anna mentioned, it is about approximately 25 acres. located just north of Ferry Road, a couple blocks east of Route 59. There are a wide variety of uses in this area. You'll see to the north, we have single family residential homes in the city of Warrenville. To the east, a variety of uses. You have the DART warehouse, warehouse use. You have recreational and sporting facilities, as well as some office buildings there. To the south, across Ferry Road, is the City Gate Center, as well as Hotel Arista. You have domain at City Gate, the apartment complexes, as well as the restaurant and retail uses that are in the City Gate Center. And then to the west, of course, is the Monarch Landing Community. So zooming in just a little bit closer, you can see the existing condition of the site. As Anna mentioned, it's largely undeveloped, with the exception of a very small parking lot. But largely, the site consists of what we would otherwise call scrub brush. So by way of history on the development or the site, the subject property was annexed to Naperville back in the early 1980s, at which time it was zoned OCI and slated for residential development. Specifically, it was slated for phase two of the Monarch Landing property or project. I think that's important to note, just because the property was never intended to be developed for commercial or office use in the larger corridor. But it's really been slated for residential use since its annexation to the city. That said, there was a period of time back in 2018 when a hockey arena was conceptualized for the property. It's 60 feet tall, 200,000 square feet, and with over 1,000 parking stalls located on the site, the arena was really just not a compatible use with the adjacent uses and really the larger area such that that development failed to move forward. I can't speak for the residents in the area, but my guess would be that they were certainly happy to see that this project did not move forward. Moving on to the zoning of the property, as I mentioned, it was zoned OCI back when it was annexed about 40 years ago. The intent of the OCI district is to act as a transition zone between business areas and residential areas, which is consistent with the site's location, with Monarch Landing to the west, then the warehouse office and business uses to the east, then the CityGate Center, Hotel Arista, apartments to the south. I think it's also important, or it's an important distinction here, that we are zoned OCI and not ORI. If you see on the top right corner of this slide, much of the property to the east is zoned ORI, which is what you would typically think of as more general, and generally speaking, corridor property. Specifically, ORI does not permit residential use in that zoning designation. So to have this development on an ORI-zoned property would require a rezoning. To the contrary, we are zoned OCI. OCI does permit townhomes as a conditional use. I think that really goes back to the original intent of the property being that it was intended for residential development. Something we always look at when we are looking to develop in a community are the underlying planning documents for the location. Here that happens to be Naperville's comprehensive plan, the 2020 housing needs assessment study, as well as the I-88 corridor study. So shown on this slide is the city's comprehensive plan and future land use plan, which slates the property as regional center. which recommends zoning districts that do include the OCI zoning designation as well as PUDs, which is what the site is currently zoned. Looking at the future land use map, you'll see that much of the area shares this regional center designation. It's all the area and really the, I'll call it magenta. So with that in mind, I think it's important to, you don't want to look at this site in a vacuum. You really need to look at the broader regional center designation and what that entails. So as noted in the comprehensive plan, the regional center designation is intended to feature a diverse mix of uses, which is very much consistent with this area. Again, Monarch Landing Warehouse uses domain apartments, retail, restaurants, Hotel Arista, et cetera, all in this area. So we certainly believe that a townhome use here will not only be compatible, but will actually enhance the area and this regional center. Looking at the use table and the comprehensive plan, we note that multifamily and apartments are listed as supporting uses, as Anna mentioned in her staff report. While we are proposing townhomes, we all know that there are a number of apartment complexes or units located just across the street or across Ferry Road. And generally speaking, we think there is very little distinction between what you may call an apartment versus a townhome, and that they are both attached residential dwelling units. So the site being located next to Monarch Landing, in kind of that same vein, we think that a townhome development is a better transition between Monarch and the surrounding uses versus an apartment complex. More broadly, guiding principle number one in the comprehensive plan is to enhance Naperville's housing stock and the diversity of options, including a variety of residential types, styles, densities, and price points. So taking everything in the comprehensive plan together and what I've shown on the last several slides, we do believe that the proposed development will provide the area with a complementary and cohesive use in this important location. It's no secret that there is a housing shortage nationwide and that Naperville is not immune to that shortage. So looking at Naperville's 2020 housing needs assessment, it echoes the sentiment in stating that Naperville needs to add 12,000 to 13,000 homes by 2040. We certainly believe that this proposed development will help satisfy that demand. Likewise, looking at the I-88 corridor study that was prepared at the direction of the NDP, The proposed development is also consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in that study. Those objectives include creating a live-work-play environment, increasing housing options, enhancing the city's tax base, providing homes to support jobs, and providing infill development in or near the corridor. In that vein, we did receive a letter of support from the president of the NDP concurring with our analysis and that the proposed development is in line with the goals of the I-88 corridor study, and also just emphasizing that the importance of these types of developments in this area to provide jobs and support the businesses and along the corridor. So with that, we are going to, I'll turn it over here for discussion on the site plan.

Good evening. My name is Doug Shannon. I'm the landscape architect and land planner on the project with Gary R. Weber Associates located at 402 West Liberty in Wheaton, Illinois. The proposed site plan for the project includes 171 townhome units. Most of those are a three-story townhome product, with select end units being the two-story Taylor site-facing end unit that was mentioned earlier. In the exhibit on the screen right now, you can see those are the larger units on the end of select buildings. With this plan, we were able to achieve a nice streetscape with all those buildings predominantly facing the proposed right-of-ways or the perimeter of the site where existing right-of-way, i.e., Comfort Drive or other existing land uses, Ferry Road and Monarch Landing are located. In coordination with the Naperville Park District, there will be a donation of a cumulative total 3.24 acres of parkland located on the south and the west portions of the property. In addition to the park dedication, I do have one correction here, 10.6 acres of open space just to be consistent with the open space exhibit that we'll show momentarily. That includes existing conservation easements and landscape easements north of Corporate Lane, existing and enhanced landscape berm along the east side along Comfort Drive, and the internal open spaces on the site. In the OCI district, for conditional uses of attached single-family housing, maximum allowable units on average are one unit per 4,000 square feet of the site. Based upon the size of the site, the maximum allowance would be 273 units. Again, we are proposing 171 units, more than 100 less than that maximum, or about 62% total. Open space exhibit. Across the entire property, you have 10.6 acres of open space in about 42.1% of the property. Minimum requirement is 30% for this use in the OCI district. And that count, again, excludes the 3.24 acres of dedicated parkland to the Naperville Park District. So in the exhibit right now, everything highlighted in green is what's counting towards that 10.6 acres, and in yellow is the 3.24 for the dedication. Setbacks. Along Ferry Road, we have one of our greatest setbacks. We're about 135 feet from the nearest building corner to the right of way. As we'll see in the landscape slides coming up, we are going to be preserving the existing ornamental fence and the mature trees just south of that fence along Ferry Road. Along the newly named Comfort Drive, minimum setback, we have it's 56 feet at the corner of one building. It's a little bit wider along the rest of the berm at about 70 feet up to the north. Closest building to building separation across Corporate Lane is 190 feet on the west. Minimum setback of 72 feet from Monarch Landings property line. Average is about 75 to the north on the project site. And then from Warrenville, the existing single family homes to the north, we're at minimum 175 feet. And then from the buildings themselves, 300 feet roughly on average so we're well outside that existing 100 foot landscape easement Which includes an existing 8 foot tall berm? Landscaping we are meeting Naperville's landscape requirements as well as providing additional landscaping in those berm areas along the existing roads Ferry Road Staff has requested a berm there. At this time, the design of the park site is up to Naperville Park District. We are showing their conceptual plan as a representative here. But again, we are going to be preserving that existing ornamental fence and the mature trees just south of that fence. Existing conditions, there are a couple stage retaining walls along that Ferry Road property line that lead down to what I believe was the old basement excavation for a prior building out there. Trees north of that ornamental fence will have to be removed for the proposed grading in that area. Along the east side of the site, there's an existing berm that is between five to six feet tall at the highest point. We are maintaining that berm as best we can. There's some slight regrading that needs to occur on our side of the berm to make the project fit, but we are preserving the landscaping on the east side of that berm, as well as providing additional trees and shrubs on both sides of the berms to improve it. On the north side of the site, we have an existing, well, proposed walkway around the buildings, as well as in coordination with staff recently, we have added a four foot wide path around the proposed stormwater basin on the north side. You can see in this slide, it shows existing stormwater basin with a wetland bottom on the east, the existing tree canopy on the north, and that landscape easement that is going to be preserved. Fencing. Along the west side of the park dedication, there's going to be a new ornamental fence that's added in to separate the park from Monarch Landing's property. And then along the south and east portions of the site, we'll be preserving the existing six-foot ornamental fence. Parking overall. We have a total of 779 proposed spaces. Those include 342 parking spaces inside the garages of the proposed units, 328 driveway parking spaces. That number's a little bit lower. There's a few units that can't achieve a full driveway stack. Where we can't do that, we have provided as many dedicated parking spaces near those units. Those will be the SCATTERING OF ONE OR TWO PARKING SPACES YOU SEE BETWEEN THE UNITS, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THOSE, A TOTAL OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ACHIEVING 22, AND WE ESTIMATE 87 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES. AT THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER FOR THE ARCHITECTURE.

All right, architecture. You stare at enough two dimensional plan views, it's like, let's get something that's a little bit more realistic. Let's talk about the architecture. I'm going to jump to the next slide just to give you an understanding of the community as a whole, put it in perspective. Again, let's move away from plan view and look at a more three-dimensional perspective of how the community lays out. To Doug's point earlier, not only do we have our site plan constraints, which lends itself to the overall community layout, but what that community layout does is tells us where architecture wants and needs to be on the site. So from an architecture standpoint, where do you put your strongest elevations, color palette, so that you can orient both how it lives and plays within the site? So the north to south orientation of the roadway network lend itself to where you see both, I call it motor court or alley loaded, I don't know if you, if I move my mouse, you're gonna see, oh there you go. Can you see that on your screen? Okay, good. So, you know, your motor court orientation, which is behind these units, they all live to the back from a garage standpoint and access standpoint to a garage. But the front door and front elevation for guests, what we call the front per se, isn't dominated by the garage. It's actually dominated by the front architecture. So as that layout progressed with the site plan, we're able then to produce a layout for the architecture that then promotes that front architecture along that street network without a bunch of driveways. It's a little bit different than what you typically see with a two-car, a two-story traditional style of townhome that's, you know, we've got a few thousand of them in Naperville. So the portfolio, if you will, and we work with staff actually the reason why we spent a lot of time on not just a site planning effort, but it was also a great direction from staff on not only taking our townhome design, but how do we elevate it? And I mean elevate, not the actual elevation, but how do we elevate color palette? How do we elevate design to a different level? And we did two things. One, we did that with color palette. There's a balance in townhome communities, built enough of them, where you do have a monotonous look, but this is an expectation of a townhome buyer. There is a look and feel to a townhome community where each individual building, as it's built, looks similar in character in terms of the unit size, as well as the bulk characteristic of the building itself. You might have a four-, five-, and six-unit building within a community, as well as that architectural styling. So there's a monotonous character to townhome developments. That's a true character of them, not unlike a multifamily apartment building is monotonous in its look and feel. But with townhomes, we have an ability with those four or five-unit buildings to change some things up a little bit. But the balance of not creating a cartoon, if you will, where at some point someone wants to see an individual unit be something different in terms of color palette and materials. So we're not doing that, because that doesn't work. So with staff's direction, we introduced a tailor unit, which you see on this list here. So we've got three total floor plans. Going back to the site plan. Well, actually, let me just. So look at this building here, and you'll see other two-dimensional stylings. But just to give you a flavor of how it looks in the site plan, as well as here, the interior units or those units that line up next to each other, that's the Madison and the Pearson. And they range in square footage from just short of 1,900 square feet up to 2,300 square feet. The Taylor unit, which you'll see is unique, And that was what we brought to the site and brought to this architecture to help break up that monotonous on the building size and bulk, as well as unit count to the building, as well as the way it lives in terms of how it brings a differentiation to the marketplace on who wants to buy that unit. It lives as what we call a raised ranch. It's two floors of living rather than three. First floor has some flex space and some optional bedroom. And second floor is where you're main living your kitchen, dining, and other bedrooms are. So just going back, the Taylor unit, 1,900 square feet. Again, two-story in its character and how it's designed. The Madison and Pearson are three-story designs. The Taylor, actually, this is a, the Taylor's only a three-bedroom unit. It's not three to four. The Madison and Pearson are three to four. We typically only build It's typically a three-bedroom townhome. The Taylor lives as a two, like an option up to a three. We'll probably see a 30% to 40% take rate probably on the third bedroom. We did introduce for the Taylor unit a first floor in-law suite. What I mean by that is actually it's an option where you can create an environment for an in-law that includes a private bathroom, bedroom, and sitting area behind an enclosed door rather than having to walk through a hallway to a bathroom. And as I made the statement on color palette, material choices, how do we bring a level of design to this? A couple of things that are nuanced here. You've got the building in the middle that doesn't have a tailor. So that's different in terms of its bulk characteristic. The tailor unit, you can see that two-story elevation on the end brings a different level of bulk or design aesthetic to that end. And I'll show you a three-dimensional design of how that looks and feels actually in the site plan. But more importantly, Front to back gables and where you put your gables. A hip roof. Again, total different characteristic from the streetscape when you look at the buildings. It's difficult to see two-dimensionally. You can see the silhouette difference between roofline to roofline. Again, treating that differently so that there's a level of care and monotony to the actual building themselves. Color palette, three different color palettes. Trying to make them consistent throughout in terms of both material cladding of both the hardy as brick and trim pieces. how to handle front doors, but still bring a consistent color palette throughout so that there is a level of consistency from building to building and throughout the community. And here you go, just more specific on the Pearson Madison Taylor. This is where you get that characteristic of the Taylor unit on the end. So when you look at it from the front door, it actually lives almost like a single family home. And this is at Taylor. I referenced the in-law suite. You can see it here in that lower left corner where you come in, double door, seating area, bathroom, and guest bed. This is the Taylor unit. So this is how it lives. Side load, well, depending on the orientation of the building, it can be both front or side load. But in many instances within the site plan, you'll see it as what we call a side load condition, where it's not on the actual road itself. And the other unique characteristic of the Taylor that I should mention, because of the orientation and how it, quote unquote, attaches itself to the other part of the building, You can see here, see what it does? It actually moves out further from the back elevation of this unit, which then creates a little screen for this motor court area, where someone might park a car behind their garage. So you can see where my arrow is. That's hidden by this unit here that is pushed out maybe 10 or so feet, if you can understand that orientation. And this is the building without the tailor. Again, more traditional in style. This is a five-unit building with a combination. We bookend each building with a Pearson. That's 2,300 square feet on the end. And the interior units are a Madison, which range about 2,100 square feet. The rear elevation, what we've done is we've carried the balconies to almost elongate themselves across the entire back of the unit, rather than just small postage-stamped little balcony outside the slider. Again, this gives you a flavor of the floor plan for both the Madison and Pearson, predominantly three bedroom townhome unit with first floor flex space, a foyer. You can option into a, what we call two and a half or two car with a third bay for storage, as well as some additional garage things, if you will, that people wanna put in their garage. Overall building height, again, being sensitive to our neighbors. We knew it was going to be a question we were going to be asked. How does this live next to a five-story building next door? How do we relate to what was previously looked at with the hockey stadium at 60 feet? But Monarch Landing, five-story buildings, obviously we live in the world of roughly three stories or at peak 35 feet and two inches of total building height. Again, a streetscape view. Let's bring it down from a perspective from Crow's View down to the street level. This is coming into the site from the main entrance looking west or northwest. Again, I wish we could do a flyby. The tech is almost there that we can quickly introduce a flyby and walk you through the community. This gives you an idea of as you come into the community, we have an open space corner. with some guest parking, and then you branch off into the two streetscapes. And you can see no garages, predominantly architecture as you flow through the site. This gives you an example of just some of the interior fit and finishes that we have proposed. These will be an opportunity for buyers to entertain our design center at a certain level of specification if they want to add some FIT AND FINISHES TO THE ACTUAL UNIT FROM A STANDARD AND ELEVATE, YOU KNOW, A KITCHEN OR A BATHROOM, THEY CAN. WE HAVE A FULL DESIGN CENTER. COME VISIT. IT'S GREAT. YOU CAN WALK THROUGH IT AND SEE IT'S A TERRIFIC EXPERIENCE FOR OUR BUYERS. AND IT'S LOCATED IN OUR MAIN OFFICE AT CITY GATE CENTER. Visitable. So actually, it was touched on before. This created a lot of work, a lot of great work of how can we introduce and address a visible home. And what do I mean by that? There are certain standards that have to be met in order for it to really function that way. Now granted, we have a three-story townhome, so it's a little unique in character and the way in which it lives anyway. But to take a look at it, we were asked to look at how these live, which kind of helped spur the idea of, well, the Taylor unit and the way it lives might be another option. So not only is it a good idea for the design aesthetic for the community itself, but also from a visitable standpoint, it might be more realistic to introduce that unit and see if it can work. Now, the visitable wasn't just taking a marker and coloring a site plan blue. What it took to get here was excellent. I mean, I'll tell you, working with staff, working with our design consultant, our civil engineer, at a very preliminary level, which is where we're at, we took it to almost a final level to understand realistically Where can we put a visible unit? Because it's not just labeling on a floor plan, and it's not just labeling on a site plan. A tremendous amount of engineering goes into it to make it truly visible. Because even though the bullet point might say one zero step entrance into a site, how do you get someone from a driveway, a sidewalk, into the house? That's where the design engineering really comes in. From a setback standpoint, how do you make sure your ADA sidewalk is compliant? It's not just the fact that you have a zero threshold entrance. It's how do you get there, which is more important. So that's why you don't see every unit as visible as if you could just design it into a site. It's very difficult to do that, depending on both the grades of the road. The elevation of the road goes up and down. How does that treat your parkway? How does that treat your sidewalk? And from your sidewalk to your building, how do you get someone into your house? So there's some design challenges that you've got to make sure are covered. And we had an opportunity to do that, given, again, the characteristics of these homes being we have garages and access in the back, but a front door in the front. We realized the three-story can, from a design and how it lays out, we figured there's a lot of opportunities to do that. Obviously, you have a flat enough site. We're in Illinois. We get lucky. We have a lot of flat sites. So we're able to do that. So this shows you we're willing to make the commitment for at least 25% of the community will be visitable. And what triggers is, again, the zero threshold entrance into the site, not to mention 32-inch doors on the first floor. And that triggers also having that bathroom on that first floor. So that's a commitment as well. Typically an option, but we'll create that as a standard for the community. And then the 25 is the minimum, and we have that opportunity if someone wants to option into it as well. Up to, I think it was roughly 60%, 61% of the entire community can be visitable. So I thought we did a great job. Again, this is looking another perspective from the north to the south. And we asked our designer, where do we want to put these? We can't just take a million photographs and understand how it all lays out. So we wanted to give you context of the area, what's there today. So you can see both in the south further background for us, as well as to our east. You've got the existing Monarch. You have Arista, the office building, City Gate, Willow Bridge's first phase. And you've got the, I forget what this one is, but that's next door. But it's the office building complex on the corner. So just to give you some context of what you have in the area and how this is situated and feels right for this particular site.

Just wanted to touch a little bit more on the park site that Doug alluded to earlier. We think it's really going to be a great amenity that will serve not only the residents of Northgate, but also Monarch Landing and really all of the residents in the area. This is something that we've certainly been diligently working on with not only the park district, but also with Monarch Landing. So it's really been a collaborative effort. As you see here, as Anna mentioned earlier, 2.59 acres will be from the MI site. as well as an additional 0.65 acres being dedicated from the Monarch Landing site for a total park site that totals over three acres. It's going to be constructed and improved by MI Homes, but then ultimately dedicated to the park district for their ownership. I'd just also point out that the park site has been strategically placed between the two communities. That does a couple of things. One, we intend the park site to be for both residents of Monarch Landing as well as Northgate. So the location between those two communities we think is ideal. In that same vein, at the same time, it provides that extra layer of buffering between the two communities. So I would point out that the park site and the plans for the park site, they are still being finalized. But at this stage, we do have a number of really big ideas laid out for the site. That includes an eight foot wide path, gathering spaces at both the north and south ends of the park that will feature plazas and pavilion shelters, as well as fitness stations located at the north end of the park. And then there will be two separate playground or play set areas. one for kids ages 2 to 5, and then a second area for kids ages 5 to 12. As shown on an earlier slide, there is a fence between Monarch Landing and Northgate. I think a really unique feature of the park site is that Monarch Landing residents will be able to get to the park site, but it is not a two-way street. So the residents from Northgate cannot get into Monarch Landing. This is just a quick slide to show that really the lack of public park space up in this area of Naperville, the nearest public park is actually almost a mile and a half away to the southeast. Again, I think this just goes to show the level of forward thinking and planning that has gone into this development. And I know the Park District is excited to have a park site up in this area of town. In addition to the park site, care was taken to ensure that residents will have ample opportunity to get outside and walk throughout the community via the sidewalk and pathway connection network in the neighborhood. So as you see here, there's the park site path on, obviously, the west side of the site that is shown in magenta. We have public sidewalks located on both sides of the public right-of-way. that you see in red. This connects to the existing sidewalk down along Ferry as well as along Corporate Lane. And then, as Doug mentioned earlier, there's also a private sidewalk network that is shown in yellow. Specifically, the one that was just added at the very north end of the property was added at the request of staff just last week. And then just one final note with regards to the park site. We wanted to make sure that there was adequate space for buffering between where kids would be playing and Ferry Road. So we did push that park site back a little bit or a little bit north so that there is now 132 feet. between Ferry Road and the park site. In that area, there's also going to be some berming, as well as landscaping that you see here, and then as well as the wrought iron fence that you see on the right side. So there's really no way that kids can get out to Ferry Road when they are playing in this area.

Good evening. My name is Peter Roneffer. I am a senior project manager and traffic engineer with V3 Companies, 7325 Janes Avenue. I'll just do a quick brief overview of the traffic analysis that we conducted. So we did complete a full traffic impact study for the proposed development, which was reviewed and approved by the city staff. We evaluated traffic conditions out to 2034, which was five years after the anticipated build-out date of 2029. The traffic analysis also did include projected traffic from the proposed residential development on the south side of Ferry Road to evaluate how traffic would operate along Ferry Road with our development and the development to the south. There are two primary access points to Ferry Road from this proposed site, the intersection at Comfort Drive, which is an unsignalized full access intersection, and then a full access intersection at Comfort Lane east of the site that aligns with Raymond Drive. These will be the two primary access points to the local roadway network. Regarding the unsignalized full access intersection at Comfort Drive, it is our understanding that there is an agreement in place already with the city that a traffic signal will be installed at that intersection when that intersection does meet traffic signal warrants per the standards in the latest edition of the MUTCD manual on uniform traffic control devices. We are proposing to make improvements along corporate lane along the north side of the property. We're going to resurface it, and I believe dedicate it to the city. So that will give us two proposed access points along Comfort Lane and then the two proposed access points along Comfort Drive. They'll provide access to this. Oh, and one more thing about the Comfort Lane access point will still remain gated between our site and the Monarch Landing site. So there will be no cut-through traffic allowed between the two sites. And I'll leave it at that.

This is the last time I'm getting up here, and then we'll turn it over to you for questions. So real quick on target market. With regards to the target market, the anticipated demographic for the community will be active adults and professionals, including family members of those living in Monarch Landing. So in line with this target market, and really just more as an interesting fact more than anything, over the last 25 years or so, those in the city over the age of 50 have increased by about 16% And the current median age in Naperville currently sits at 40. So the development has certainly been designed to attract and serve this demographic. Over the course of the last year or so, MI Homes has done an excellent job and spent a significant amount of time on community outreach to ensure that this residential development benefits not only the future residents of Northgate, but also residents and all residents of Naperville in the area. So we've done a number of things with our community outreach. This includes we've collaborated with Senior Care Development who is the owner of Monarch Landing. They have no objection. We hosted a resident meeting at Monarch Landing with their community members and residents that lived there. We've coordinated with Monarch staff in connection with the park site design and location. We've coordinated with the city of Warrenville. We also hosted a resident meeting for those residents in Warrenville that are to the north. We've coordinated with the Prairie Point Corporate Park to the east. They have no objection with the development. We've worked closely with the Naperville Park District, who is certainly in support of the project and the park site. We've coordinated with the Indian Prairie School District 204, who was also provided a letter of no objection. And as mentioned earlier on in the presentation, we have a letter of support from the president of the NDP supporting the project. So just a couple quick exhibits. School district support letter. We have a letter of support from the executive director of Monarch Landing, as well as a support letter from a couple residents that live in Monarch Landing. Also, just one last nod to the Naperville community. We have left one of the internal street names blank with a placeholder for what we're calling a notable Napervillian that it could be named after. So while we have not picked anyone yet, we kind of look forward to working with staff, commission, and city council to see who that lucky individual may be. I'd like to just finally wrap up the presentation with a quick overview of benefits that the proposed development will provide the area, the community, and the city of Naperville as a whole. In addition to providing additional housing stock, we also feel very strongly that this community will support the nearby commercial and city gate center uses, help fill jobs in the corridor, and enhance Naperville's workforce to attract new investment and employers in the corridor, and will generate, create, generate and create new tax and income and revenue for the city and community, as well as, obviously, provide additional housing stock in the community. This is just one last slide. I know that Anna mentioned this earlier on, but there are a number of conditions to approval or recommended approval by staff. We have reviewed those, and we are okay with them. We had one minor tweak as to definition of what the main floor entails in a townhome, so there was a little bit of language added there that we discussed with staff last week. But other than that, thank you all for your time. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. All right. At this time, I'd like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on this case. Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

Lincoln Lockhart.

Sorry.

I'm Lincoln Lockhart, and I've been a citizen of Naperville for 34 years, the last two and a half years at Monarch Landing at 2255 Monarch Drive. Our east-facing unit looks right out into the property you're considering tonight. I'm glad that some... Redevelopment of this property is finally under consideration because if you go and look at it today, you'll find it's in an unruly state populated by invasive trees and weeds and all kinds of undergrowth. It's surrounded by a foreboding fence that hides its hideous state, really, if you're at ground level. Almost any development short of a warehouse would be a vast improvement in that property. But my major concern is population density in the subject area. Two weeks ago, you approved the development of CityGate 2 virtually across the very road from this development. And it's stated to have 297 units, which I took a guess at would be converted into like 500 people. and probably more than 300 automobiles. Tonight, you are considering Northgate of Naperville with 171 townhomes, which I thought would draw at least 200 cars on a permanent basis, though they've allowed, as they said, 779 parking places. Now, that means that probably half of that will be a more accurate number. Together, when you combine Monarch Landing and Domain, which is the other apartment building on the City Gate property, These four residential buildings will likely be the most densely populated neighborhood in all of Naperville, especially when you include offices and businesses already in the City Gate complex. There are two vehicular streets to escape that neighborhood. Ferry Road and Route 59, both of which are notoriously difficult to enter and navigate, especially in rush hour. Now, there's been a lot of talk about Corporate Lane and Comfort Lane. They both dump into Ferry Road. The net result is you're just shifting some of the traffic further east. It's easily imagined that this density and traffic congestion will result in a significant increase in automobile accidents and injuries. I ask that you carefully consider both these new developments And the key traffic increases that the current plans will result in. by either decreasing the size of one or both of the projects or by mandating the additional traffic signal, which I first heard of tonight in their plans. One, I don't know if one will do it, in which two developments share the cost. I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this case?

Roger Ganshel? Am I saying that last name? Roger? Oh, okay. Thank you. No problem. Richard Payne? Okay. Tom Turnbull? All right. George Hardwich. OK. Lisa Cassidy. We are all out of names, Madam Chair.

And we will move to the commissioners now.

Oh, yes.

We have one speaker who has not signed up but wishes to speak on the case.

Did you swear in when you came in?

Did you stand up for this morning? If not, we can do that again for her.

All right. Let me go back. Hold on. All right. Can you please stand up? Raise your right hand and say, I swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. All right. You may approach the podium.

Good evening. My name is Mary Hamill, and I reside at 852 Mobile Court in Naperville. I am here tonight representing the Naperville Accessible Community Task Force, also known as the ACTF. Our mission is to enhance the quality of life of persons with cognitive, physical, mental, and developmental disabilities living, working, or visiting the city of Naperville. I am speaking tonight in strong support of this agenda item regarding the requested entitlements for the North Gate of Naperville Town Home developments at 2255 Monarch Drive. In their response to standard documents, the developer, MI Homes of Chicago, states that, A large quantity of the units will incorporate visitable standards. They will achieve this through strategic planning placement of service walks and zero entry thresholds. For context, zero entry thresholds are a core component of visitability. This is an inclusive design concept, ensuring homes can be easily accessed and lived by people who use mobility devices such as walkers, canes, or wheelchairs. The ACTF has been working very hard with the City of Naperville and local home builders to integrate visitability into new housing designs. To see a developer proactively commit to the standard for a significant percentage of their homes is a monumental step forward. To say that the members of the ACTF are elated would be an understatement. This project sets a wonderful precedent for inclusive development in our community. I strongly urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the request entitlements for the North Gate project of Naperville. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak tonight on this case?

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER LANGENBACH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO HAVE A FEW minor questions. First off, regarding the street names, Doug, you mentioned this, but I was just looking for confirmation regarding corporate lane. If you go there right now, it is called corporate lane. But in all of the site plans, it's called comfort lane. So just looking for confirmation that that as part of this, the street name is going to be changed. I don't know if that's for you or for staff, but just looking for that confirmation.

That's actually something that we've been working with staff and it will be renamed to Comfort so it all kind of works together in a cohesive manner.

Okay, good. Thank you. That was one. I saw on the map that there were wetlands northwest of the property and was just wondering if there was any kind of field study done and if it was necessary just given the proximity to the wetlands.

Those existing wetlands up there are currently within an existing conservation easement that we are in compliance with. There's only one small portion of walkway that crosses into one portion of that and not into the wetlands, just into the outer edge of the easement.

So is there anything on the property that's being removed that is considered wetlands or that needed a field study? Okay. Okay. See if I had any other ones for you. No. Okay. Thank you. The traffic light. Peter, you mentioned that it needs to hit warrants to trigger the installation. I'm just wondering what those are and who is going to be paying for the light.

So the standards are, there's nine different standards that have to be, one of nine standards has to be met in order for a traffic signal to be warranted and installed. There's three that are based on traffic volumes, some that are based off of safety, railroad crossings, optimization of signals along a corridor. Typically, though, since Ferry Road is a DuPage County roadway, they will look at either an eight hour warrants or a four hour warrants. And there are certain thresholds of traffic volumes over those four and eight hours that have to be met in order to meet that warrants. Traffic counts would have to be conducted likely after both of the developments are constructed. And then analysis would be conducted to determine if the volumes would meet the warrants and if it would, then a traffic signal could be installed. I'm going to punt on the who would have to pay for it, because I'm not exactly sure who it is. But my understanding is that there's an agreement with the developer to the south that was done maybe with the first phase of CityGate. You want to take it? All right, great. Thank you.

Just a couple points of clarification. So the warrants are not anticipated to be met with the development to the south of Ferry Road. as well as with the development of North Gate, we anticipate that those warrants will not be met until the event center comes through. So it's really kind of, we'll call it phase three of the development. So when the event center comes, that's when we anticipate those warrants will be met. As far as payment for the traffic signal, the short answer is it will not be the city. There's an agreement in place when City Gate 1 or Domain 1 came through that obligates the developer of that property to pay for the traffic signal. That said, we have been working a little bit with staff, and this will be ironed out in the operating agreements to follow or owner's agreements to follow exactly what that payment looks like and who's contributing. But yeah, short answer is it will not be a city obligation.

Okay, so just stay there for a quick sec.

So what do you think the timing on this? Because I think it's inevitable that you're going to need a light there. There's going to be a lot of new traffic. I'm not sure what this event center is, but that also sounds like it's going to warrant. So what are we talking here time-wise after all of these are built? I think they're going to need to know that.

Sure. And I can tell you, so we anticipate for purposes of tonight, Northgate will be fully built out in 2031. As far as the event center goes, I'm not entirely certain on timing of that as not our development. So it's a little bit out of our hands. I know that that plan is in the works. I don't know an exact timeline though for that.

Okay. So a while. Okay. Let me see if there are any for you. Well, I'm not sure on this question. Are the garages going to be EV wired? Or is there going to be dedicated EV charging stations within the development?

So it will conform to Illinois code requirements, which they require there's a certain level of EV capable is the triggering word that must be installed in there. So whereas it's not going to be day one, you can't go in and plug your electric car in, but the underlying infrastructure will be there so that if you do have an electric vehicle, it can certainly entertain that vehicle.

OKAY.

GOOD.

THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST FINALLY, I AM JUST OVERALL JUST THRILLED ABOUT THE VISITABILITY. THAT YOU ARE PROACTIVE ABOUT IT AND ADDRESSING THIS. 61% IS HUGE. AND I AM JUST THRILLED. SAME WITH MARY. And with the help of Mary and the ACTF, I just have to say that the fact that visitability is in the city's vocabulary and being addressed in all of these developments is honestly, you know, one of my proudest accomplishments as a former council member. So I just, I want to really thank you for that. Thank you.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. ONCE AGAIN, GREAT PRESENTATION, AND I ALSO WANT TO APPLAUD YOU FOR CONSIDERING MORE THAN 60% VISITABLE UNITS. THAT'S GREAT, ESPECIALLY IN THE CORRIDOR. QUESTION ABOUT PARTIALLY TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY AS WELL AS TO THE FOR MY INFORMATION AND FOR LEARNING TO THE STAFF AS WELL. LIKE LAST WEEK, AS YOU ALL KNOW, LIKE WE JUST APPROVED LAST MEETING, WE JUST APPROVED THE CITY GATE 2 PROJECT, AND NOW THIS PROJECT IS COMING. CONSECUTIVE PROJECTS LIKE THIS COMING INTO THE SAME AREA, DOES TRAFFIC STUDY LOOK INTO IMMEDIATELY APPROVED PROJECTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT?

YES. SO WHEN WE DID OUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WE PROJECTED TRAFFIC OUT TO 2034 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, COORDINATED WITH THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING TO DEVELOP GROWTH RATES. applied those growth rates to the traffic counts that we collected, and then we also added the projected traffic from the development on the south side of the street. So we reviewed their traffic study, determined how much traffic that they were going to add to the roadway network at their various access points. My understanding is I think they have two access points along Ferry and even an access point along directly on Illinois 59. So we included their projected traffic at the intersection of ferry and comfort, corporate, whatever you want to call it. And then also added our traffic. We conducted a capacity analysis to determine how the intersection would operate. And then we also conducted a traffic signal warrant analysis based on those traffic projections to determine that the existing traffic plus our traffic PLUS THE 297 UNITS TO THE SOUTH WOULD NOT MEET A TRAFFIC SINGLE WARRANT AT THIS TIME. SO, YES, WE DID INCLUDE THEIR TRAFFIC IN OUR TRAFFIC SITE. SO IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY INCLUDING BOTH SITES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, STAFF, WHEN PROJECTS LIKE THIS, LIKE, DO WE MANDATE FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT TO INCLUDE RECENTLY APPROVED PROJECTS? JUST FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, I WAS ASKING THIS QUESTION.

GOOD EVENING, I'M PETE ZIBEL WITH ENGINEERING SERVICES. SO YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT HOW STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE, PROJECTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE, FUNDING IS OUT THERE IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THESE MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BASICALLY BENEFICIARIES TO A FUTURE SIGNAL. ONE OF THE REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS STRESSED ENOUGH IS THAT IT IS A DUPAGE COUNTY HIGHWAY. SO IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE THEIR DECISION WHETHER OR NOT A SIGNAL IS ALLOWED AT THIS LOCATION. AND CITY STAFF IS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHEN ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS COME IN, IT'S VERY, VERY LIKELY THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY MEET WARRANTS. AND THE CITY'S GOING TO TAKE A LEADER ROLE IN MANAGING THAT. OBSERVING IT AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THE WARRANT ANALYSIS TO SEE WHEN IT ACTUALLY GETS THERE AND THEN WE WILL SUPPORT IT AND TRY TO CONVINCE THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, IN OUR THINKING AS WELL AND GET THEIR PERMISSION AND PERMITS TO INSTALL IT. SO REALLY THE CITY STAFF IS GOING TO BE TAKING THE LEAD ROLE ON MOVING THIS FORWARD AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS HAPPENS WHEN IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

THANK YOU.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERIOR ROADWAY. I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED THERE, ERIC, ON THE PRESENTATION. COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT AGAIN, MAYBE PULL UP SLIDE 49 THAT SHOWS THE TRAFFIC FLOW. COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT AGAIN ABOUT HOW PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO THE PARK FROM MONARCH LANDING, HOW THAT WHOLE THING FLOWS? AND THEN YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT ACCESS ONE WAY BUT NOT THE OTHER. COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO ME A LITTLE BIT? Or you could use that slide.

Yeah, this should work well enough. So there's an existing gate across Corporate Lane to the north. That gate will remain so that there won't be passenger traffic in and out through those two subdivisions. When I referenced Monarch Landing residents being able to get to the east but not the other way around, That's to get to the park site, so that would be pedestrian traffic.

Okay.

So we kind of, this is still being ironed out, but we kind of envision some sort of gate where you have some sort of key card or punch code that only residents of Monarch Landing will have.

Got it. That makes sense. Okay. And then I noticed in this slide and a couple other slides, on the Monarch Landing side, there's a little roundabout that has a street that looked like it was anticipated. Is that being closed off?

That would be closed off. There's going to be a fence that runs that entire property line. Okay.

And then regarding the parks themselves, who's maintaining the parks and the equipment in the parks? That would be the park district. The park district is taking that. Okay. Let's see here. What else did I have? And then my last question is on the traffic study. Peter, If you could maybe pull up slide 49 for me. I just want to understand this. Actually, go back one. No, the one that shows both exits, the corporate on to ferry and then that one. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, so the corporate lane has a traffic signal. The one that's missing and could be future is the one more to the west, correct? Yes, sir. So did the traffic study anticipate that people turning east on the ferry would probably take the traffic light route rather than trying to take the... THE WESTERN ROUTE?

YES, YES. WE MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS ON TRAFFIC THAT WANTED TO TRAVEL LIKE EXITING THE SITE BUT PRIMARILY THE MORNING TRIPS, EXITING THE SITE AND TRAVELING TO THE EAST. OR TRAVELING EVEN SOUTH ON RAYMOND DRIVE. MADE SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT MOST OF THAT TRAFFIC WOULD LIKELY TRAVEL ALONG CORPORATE LANE EAST AND THEN SOUTH ON CORPORATE LANE TO GET TO THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A MUCH EASIER MOVEMENT at making a protected left turn or protected through movement at the traffic signal instead of at the unsignalized left turnout movements.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. One last question. Sorry. Do you anticipate any of the folks on the south side of the property to cross ferry and use the parks on the north side of the property? And if so, has there been any talk about crosswalk enhancement or cross ferry lane?

I don't think we really had those internal discussions. I mean, that could be an option. since this is one of the few parks on the north side of the streets, I'm sorry, on the north side of Naperville, I could see there being a need for some, or wanting some people from the south side to cross over. I think that's something that we can discuss internally and discuss with city staff about.

Okay, yeah, if you could take a look at that. You know, again, that's my only concern is some of the apartment folks may want to use that park and crossing ferry would be kind of dangerous with some sort of enhanced crosswalk. Yeah, absolutely. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Namas. All right.

No questions.

All right. I have a couple things I'll say, but I am still a little confused about the access from Monarch over to the park. It sounds like that's still being worked out, but I'm trying to envision if there's, let's say, two folks coming from Monarch, one has a wheelchair or a walker, and they want to just go sit in the park. I'm trying to understand, how are they accessing that?

THERE'S SIDEWALK ALONG CORPORATE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE, CORRECT.

OKAY. I'M LIKE, I DON'T SEE THEM GOING THROUGH THE GRASS. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. AND THEN GOING BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER WRIGHT HAD MENTIONED, AND I KNOW THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THIS PROJECT, BUT I WANT TO ASK, HAS THERE EVER BEEN CONSIDERATION FOR PUTTING A PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF FERRY, WHERE THE OTHER CALAMOS PROPERTY IS? YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER, LIKE I SAID.

FOR THE CITY GATE DEVELOPMENT? So they have their own, really their own amenities in each of those apartment complexes, the existing as well as the proposed. I know we showed the outdoor pool last planned commission meeting as well as the sidewalk network down there. If you recall, there's a detention pond on the south side there that residents can use to walk around, and that's currently where many residents walk their dogs.

And were there benches over there?

Were there what?

benches, like seating?

My recollection is yes, that there were benches around there. Because I know it's highly utilized by those residents.

OK. Thank you for that. All right. With that said, would you like to make any closing remarks?

No, I think that's it. Thank you.

All right, great. At this time, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEB-0175-2025. So moved. Can I have a second?

Second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right, motion carries. Do any of the commissioners have any comments on this case? As a reminder, if you intend to recommend denial of this case, please state your reasons why. Commissioner McDaniel.

FIRST COMMENTS FOR CITY STAFF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR POINTING OUT YOUR CONCERNS, SPECIFICALLY HOW YOU WERE REQUESTING THAT THE PETITIONER WILL PROVIDE A LETTER TO ANY POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS ABOUT WHAT COULD OR IS BEHIND THEM. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT WAY TO ALLEVIATE ANY FUTURE ISSUES OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ON THE LINE. I think that's it. I love it. I think it's exciting. I think it's going to be a good development, so I'm happy to support it.

All right. Anyone else?

Thank you for the great presentation. While the proposed development may defer the long-term vision for I-88 corridor, the site has remained vacant and underutilized for decades. So overall, I find the proposal to be a positive redevelopment opportunity, and that supports the requested approval. So thank you for this proposal. I will be supporting. Thank you.

Anyone else? I would, I'll add to that. I think this was an extremely well done presentation. I think the comments made by staff, I really appreciated that. And most importantly, seeing the amount of community support in that presentation speaks volumes for me. So I will be in favor of this and I'm excited. So thank you for that. All right, so Commissioner Bonsall, I would like you to 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 0175-2025, a major change to the Monarch Landing PUD, a PUD plat with a deviation to reduce the front yard setback, AND A CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS IN THE OCI DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2255 MONARCH DRIVE SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

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

ABU BAKER. I AGREE. BONZO. I AGREE. CASTIGNOLI. I AGREE. LANGAMA. I AGREE WITH THE MOTION. MCDANIEL. I AGREE. NAMES.

I AGREE.

Robbins? I agree. Wright, I agree with the motion. Motion passes 8-0. Congratulations.

All right. The last case on tonight's agenda is DEV-0108-2025. The public hearing is now open. Therese Egner from staff will present the case.

THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS COMPRISED OF SEVEN PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING AVENUE AND MILL STREET. IN JANUARY OF 2008 AN ORDINANCE WAS APPROVED REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO THE R2 SINGLE FAMILY AND LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 2007 SPRING AVENUE STUDY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE THEIR USE AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE WITHIN THE R2 DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 610 NONCONFORMING USES OF THE NAPERVILLE MUNICIPAL CODE. DEMOLITION PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN NOVEMBER OF 2025 AND THE BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE SINCE BEEN REMOVED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TO THE NORTH, OZINKA CONCRETE TO THE WEST, NAPER AUTOWORKS TO THE NORTHEAST, AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH RECOMMENDS R2 AND R3 ZONING DISTRICTS, IDENTIFIES TOWNHOMES AS A PRIMARY USE AND A DENSITY OF UP TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PETITIONER ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN AUGUST OF 2025. ON JANUARY 2026 THE PETITIONER HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND RECEIVED FEEDBACK REGARDING THE PROPOSAL. STAFF SHARED THESE CONCERNS AND ENCOURAGED THE PETITIONER TO MODIFY THEIR PLANS ACCORDINGLY. THE PETITIONER HAS SINCE SUBMITTED MODIFIED PLANS ADDRESSING FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM NEIGHBORHOOD AND STAFF. THE PRIMARY REVISIONS TO THE PLANS INCLUDE MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY'S ZONING DESIGNATION OF R2 AND INSTEAD REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS IN THE R2 DISTRICT. REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 26 UNITS TO 25 UNITS, REMOVING A VARIANCE TO THE AREA REQUIREMENTS ALSO KNOWN AS A DENSITY VARIANCE. RECONFIGURATING THE SITE PLAN TO ORIENT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOWARD SPRING AVENUE AND MILL STREET TO CORRELATE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. REVISING THE ELEVATIONS TO INCORPORATE GABLE ROOF, EARTHTONE BUILDING MATERIALS AND ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. Increasing landscaping along Spring Avenue and Mill Street, including providing a decorative fence with masonry piers. Adding sidewalks internal to the site and from street fronting units connecting the public sidewalk along Spring Avenue and Mill Street. The dwelling units will be owner-occupied and a homeowners association will be responsible for exterior maintenance, landscaping, and snow removal. The municipal code classifies single-family attached dwellings as a conditional use in the R2 district. The 2007 Spring Avenue study referenced when the properties were rezoned has since been replaced with the land use master plan, which outlines an updated Spring Avenue plan. THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIES THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RECOMMENDS R2 AND R3 ZONING DISTRICTS. FURTHER, THE SPRING AVENUE CORRIDOR WAS IDENTIFIED AS OPPORTUNITY TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IDENTIFIES TOWNHOMES AS THE PRIMARY LAND USE. STAFF FINDS THE PETITIONER'S PROPOSAL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN. STAFF ALSO FINDS THE PROPOSED TOWNHOMES TO BE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE TRAIN LINE TO THE NORTH TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. The municipal code requires a rear yard setback of 25 feet in the R2 zoning district. The city's zoning ordinance establishes setback requirements to ensure there is appropriate separation between adjacent properties and uses. The shape of the subject property results in the three northern property lines running parallel to Spring Avenue, all being classified as rear lot lines. THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET AT THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. THE PETITIONER PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND LANDSCAPING ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES TO VISUALLY SCREEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE TRAIN LINE. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE PETITIONER'S REQUESTED REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST. IN SUMMARY, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST AS THE PROPOSED USE OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN AND FINDS THE USE TO BE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR. STAFF NOW REQUESTS YOU CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. WILL THE PETITIONER PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jimmy Calvo with Calvo Law Offices. Our offices are at 552 South Washington Street, Suite 224, just down the street. First, I'd like to thank staff for that wonderful overview of the project that I prepared to present today. I'm going to try not to repeat too much of what their wonderful presentation has already said. With me today, I have Rich Kramer of Kramer Homes, the petitioner for the project. Rob Costello of Torch Architecture. He's the lead architect. And Pete Kluska with Semcon Engineering. He's the civil engineer. And Steve Corcoran of Erickson Engineering. He is the traffic engineer. The project's name, Ostera, is an old word for spring and new beginnings, fitting for a corner on Spring Avenue the city has long hoped to see renewed. The site itself is located at the northwest corner of Spring Avenue and Mill Street. It's a unique location given its variety of surrounding uses. It's surrounded on the north by the BNSF railroad tracks. To the west is the Ozinga Concrete Plant. To the northeast is the Naperville Auto Mechanic Shop. A little bit further to the east are the Naperville Station Townhome Community. To the south are a mixture of duplex homes and single family homes. And then to the south and southeast is the residential west side neighborhood. This particular corridor has been of particular interest to the city of Naperville for nearly 20 years. In 2007, they commissioned the Spring Avenue plan to try to study and coordinate how to best transition the existing industrial uses to a more residential use. In 2008, they implemented that plan or began implementing that plan by rezoning the site from industrial to R2 residential. The 2022 land use master plan carries that vision forward. It observes that the Spring Avenue area, quote, has not experienced the extent of residential redevelopment that the Spring Avenue plan has. initially envisioned, and it directs that medium density residential place type, and in particular townhomes, to be used in the service businesses, industrial uses, and properties abutting the railroad. In other words, this site is precisely what the land use master plan wants to see transition from what it currently is to the project that Osterra intends to deliver. PETITIONER CONSULTED CLOSELY WITH THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN TO GUIDE THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY WEIGHED THE PROPER ZONING WHEN IT INITIALLY STUDIED THIS AREA. AND THEN THE RESIDENTS ALSO VOICED A CLEAR DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT. OSTERA AND PETITIONER HAVE HONORED BOTH. IT IS DESIGNED ENTIRELY TO FIT WITHIN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT. At 10.87 dwelling units per acre, it falls under the recommended 12 units per acre medium density target for the land use master plan. And the density is nearly identical to the townhome community just to the east, that Naperville Station townhome community that comes in right around 10 units per acre. The only zoning relief requested is a rear yard setback variance along the northern edge of the property along the BNSF railroad tracks. And notably, it doesn't encroach up to any neighbor. The BNSF railroad provides a permanent buffer. The code requires 25 feet. We are requesting at its closest a 13 foot setback or a 13 foot variance so that the closest point would be 13 feet to the setback. For comparison, and then the closest any actual home gets to the tracks is 72 feet. For comparison's sake, there are homes just to the west of this that come within 45 feet of the tracks. And at Naperville Station, just to the east, those homes come to within 75 feet of the tracks. And so the requested variance is consistent with the surrounding land uses and is minimally invasive. The community itself will consist of 25 luxury townhomes for sale. They will range from 2,900 square feet to 3,400 square feet. Each one will have three beds and four baths. Each one will have a two-car garage, and all the garages face the interior of the site. There's also a private driveway. for each unit, a balcony off of the second story. And as you all know, it's a very walkable location, a short walk to both the Metro train station and downtown Naperville. This is a general floor plan for a unit in the community. On the first floor, you have the garage, as well as a bonus room and a half bath. On the second floor is the living area and kitchen with the balcony off of the kitchen and another half bath. And then on the third floor, you have the primary bedroom with a large walk-in closet and full bathroom suite. And then two smaller bedrooms also with their own large walk-in closet and their own full bathroom suite. Here's a picture of the site plan. The site is 2.3 acres. The buildings will be broken up into six different, the 25 townhomes will be broken up into six different lots. The lot in the lower southwest part will consist of five homes, and the remaining five lots will consist of four homes each. The site plan calls for 114 total parking spaces, two spaces per garage in each unit. Then there's two spaces available in the driveway of each unit, and then 14 guest parking spaces off on the western edge of the site plan. The petitioner initially finalized his plans in December and met with the local residents to try to collaborate and incorporate their feedback into his project. The residents offered a wealth of feedback and a lot of thoughtful feedback. And it resulted in significant changes to the plan. The petitioner went back and redrew the entire site plan and reoriented all of the buildings that are on Spring and Mill to face those streets to better incorporate this community into the surrounding neighborhood. The residents also noted that the flat roofs that were initially a part of this project didn't quite fit in with the surrounding neighborhood, and so gabled roofs were added to all of the homes. The residents pointed to Naperville Station as a sort of model to draw inspiration from. And they specifically pointed to the decorative fencing on the front of those homes on Spring Avenue. And so we've incorporated the same type of decorative fencing wrought iron style with brick columns at the end on both Spring and Mill. The project also incorporates a number of the residents thought that there wasn't enough sidewalks in the original site plan. And so we've incorporated far more interior sidewalks to encourage walkability for both the community residents and then also incorporate the project in with the rest of the neighborhood. And then the final concern that we heard was that, There might be street parking. People might be encouraged to park on the street if there wasn't enough parking provided at the site. And so this site plan offers double the amount of required parking. The code requires 57 parking spaces. And this site plan offers 114 parking spaces. Integral to any. Development like this is the landscape plan, and here there's been a lot of thought put into the landscaping plan. There are layered foundation plantings at every street-facing facade. There are street and parkway trees along both spring and mill, and landscapes screening along the western boundary adjacent to the Ozinga property. And it's all framed, again, by that decorative fencing that we incorporated. The petitioner consulted with District 203 regarding the impact or potential impact this might have on the district. And the district was very clear that it does not object to this development. Their generation tables anticipate fewer than 10 school-aged children to live at this type of project. But at the request of both staff and the residents, we and Petitioner went out and hired a third party to also try to project the number of school-aged children. So Tracy Cross provided a projection of eight students, approximately. to be generated by a community of this size. And they looked specifically at the Naperville Station project just down the street. And they found that 21 school-aged children currently live there. And so if you apply that same ratio to this project, you again arrive at the seven to eight school-aged children to be generated by this project. THERE'S ALSO A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROVIDED TO CITY STAFF, AND WHAT WAS FOUND IS THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY SUBMITTED PROJECTS A NET DECREASE IN WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TRIPS COMPARED TO THE SITE'S EXISTING OR RECENTLY PRIOR USE, WITH A MODEST INCREASE ON THE WEEKENDS. TOWNHOMES ARE SIMPLY AT LOWER INTENSITY USE THAN THE PRIOR INDUSTRIAL USES. AND THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED THE STUDY AND CONCUR WITH ITS FINDINGS. So in summary, the 2022 land use master plan calls for exactly this transition at this site. The design fits the neighborhood. The neighborhood's feedback is built into the plan. And petitioner respectfully requests that this recommendation of approval for the conditional use of a 25 unit townhome development and a single rear yard setback variance along the northern boundary of the property. Thank you, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

Sarah Eadie.

Good evening. My name is Sarah Eddy, and I am a Naperville resident that resides on Mill Street between Spring and Douglas Avenues. I want to begin by saying that I'm not opposed to development or redevelopment of this property. My concern is whether the scale and density of this particular proposal are appropriate for this location and for the surrounding neighborhood. This proposal would place 25 townhome units on just over two acres at one of the busiest intersections in this area of town. While traffic studies can provide useful data, I would like to share my firsthand experience with this corridor. I work from home, and my home office faces Mill Street. Because of that, I observe traffic conditions at this intersection throughout the day. I regularly see congestion build as vehicles queue along Mill Street, and the sound of screeching tires has become a common occurrence that serves as a reminder that this is already a challenging and dangerous intersection. I am also a parent, and I've walked my daughter to school for years. I have tremendous respect for our dedicated crossing guard at Mill and Douglas, who works tirelessly to keep our children safe. She does an outstanding job under difficult circumstances, but even with her presence, it remains a dangerous intersection. Watching children cross Mill Street every day has given me a deep appreciation for the risks that already exist at this location, which would be made worse with the addition of 25 townhome units. The traffic study provided by Kramer does not reflect how dangerous this crossing is for our children or accurately reflect the conflicts between cars, pedestrians, cyclists, e-bikes, scooters, and school-aged children. I would encourage anyone on the commission to visit this intersection for the morning rush to school and observe how precarious and dangerous it really is already. I would also ask the Commission to consider the cumulative impact on community infrastructure. While the impacts of this development may appear manageable when viewed in isolation, please consider that this proposal sits within a corridor that has been identified for redevelopment for many years, and there remain additional properties along Spring Avenue that could potentially redevelop in the future. Furthermore, there are 11 townhomes that are currently being constructed as part of the Benton and Main project. Additional resident density inevitably brings additional demands on school districts that are already operating at capacity, parks, roads, and pedestrian infrastructure and city services. I want to see the Spring Avenue corridor developed, but when you consider the 25 units that Kramer's requesting, how many more units can our infrastructure support in this area? If Kramer were limited with the number of units for these parcels, it would allow for further redevelopment for the rest of the corridor. THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT WILL ESTABLISH EXPECTATIONS FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE A LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE FROM KRAMER THAT REDUCES THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND SCHOOLS AND TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING PRINCIPLES THAT THE RESIDENTS IN THE CITY HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO ESTABLISH FOR ALL OF SPRING AVENUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER ANDY JOHNSON.

Good evening, Madam Chairman and the members of the Planning Commission. My name is Andy Johnson. I'm a lifelong resident. I have grown up at 8th and Webster, and I currently live at 4 North Whispering Hills Drive. I'm very familiar with this Kramer site. I have witnessed considerable growth and change that Naperville has undergone over the years, some good, some bad. I believe that this project would not be good for the neighborhood, its residents, and the community as a whole. It is simply too dense, too many units on too small of a piece of land, 25 units on 2.3 acres of land. The intersection at Spring and Mill is nuts with the current level of traffic, and its level of development would just make things worse. There is a lot of pedestrians on Mill Street with kids walking to school and pedestrian traffic in general. Whatever you approve for the Kramer parcel, would likely be approved for the Ozingle parcel and the parcel west of Ozingle. With that, the sanitation and storm sewer is an issue with all the new roofs. And I am worried about the residents and the impact of this level of density would have on the neighborhood. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

NEXT SPEAKER. NEXT SPEAKER. STEVE CORKRAN.

STEVE CORKRAN.

STEVE CORKRAN.

I'M PART OF THE TEAM.

I'M PART OF THE TEAM.

I'M PART OF THE TEAM. OKAY.

OKAY. OKAY.

SORRY. SORRY. SORRY. JASON WIES.

Good evening. My name is Jason Weiss. I live at 123 North Fremont Street in Naperville for 19 years, another six in the area. So 25 years before making it before the Planning Commission. So yay. But hopefully another 25 before I'm back. But I feel like we were at different meetings, community meetings, where it was standing room only at the Main Street Promenade. I don't remember the community. necessarily caring about maintaining R2. The community was concerned about the number of units, concerned about how that would affect traffic and the school capacity. And I don't remember city staff being there. There was a very selective hearing by the developer and almost no addressing of the concerns that the community raised. My objection to this probably echoes what other people have said. A number of units doesn't fit on the lot and seems to be a little too dense. Number two is the traffic study that I saw was a trip count and wasn't really a count of the actual traffic that flows through the neighborhood. And an actual modeling of where the new traffic would flow after the units are built. As it is now, Mill Street is dangerous to pull out onto. Just this morning, my wife was hit on Mill Street in Douglas. And so it is dangerous. When my kids were learning to drive, I would tell them to go down to Benton to catch the four-way stop. That's the way traffic's going to flow. Instead of trying to pull out on left onto Mill, they're going to flow through the neighborhood. And I think that that needs to be considered. It's already dangerous. I walk it every day, 6 o'clock Monday through Friday in the evening. You'll find me at the corner of Douglas and Mill taking a leap of faith crossing. But it's not just there. Traffic gets off of Mill Street, goes down to west, turns left, and the, you know, West and Douglas is becoming a dangerous place, too, with the number of kids and the flow of the traffic, people trying to avoid Mill, trying to get to other areas in the city. I don't think that that's been properly vetted, and I don't think it's addressed by a trip count. that's been provided. I think you need to, again, have true counts of what's going on with the traffic, model the flow, and predict what's going to happen from the development. And just as a reminder, final thought, a master plan or a land use plan is not an infrastructure plan or an implementation plan. The infrastructure has to support the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker. Robert Crawford.

Hello. My name is Robert Crawford. I've been in the community for 12 years or so now. And I really wanted to come up and talk about the infrastructure from a schooling standpoint. I have three kids. One's 11. One is nine. One is five now. And I just have questions around how 25 homes or 25 large homes could fit into a community that's already having a hard time fitting kids into the school. I mean, the idea of three-bedroom homes, 25, are going to fit somewhere between seven and eight kids seems a little bit of a stretch to me. As we all know, the neighbor has a hard time keeping the kids as they have it. They're spillover already over into the junior high, and the thought of adding more MORE KIDS INTO THIS COMMUNITY LIKE WITHIN THE SMALL AREA THAT WE ALREADY HAVE SEEMS PRETTY PROBLEMATIC. SO THAT'S OVERALL MY CONCERN AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

NEW SPEAKER ADRIENNE FLESHNER.

NEW SPEAKER HELLO COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE TIME TO SPEAK ON THIS. My name is Adrian Flessner. I live at 310 North Fremont. So I'm a resident here in this neighborhood. And I'm asking you tonight to please vote no on this project in its current form. The developer's team keeps using a math formula to say this product fits within the rules of this area. They keep talking about the 4,000 square feet per unit standard for R2 land. But to a neighbor of the plan, it just seems like they're trying to cram as many units as possible into this space to maximize the economics. Kramer's team keeps pointing to the Naperville Station townhomes down the street and saying, this is the exact same thing. But if you look at the math for Naperville Station as the whole neighborhood, including its big retention pond, green space, the density is actually around seven or eight units for the entire land area. Kramer wants to put almost 11 homes per acre on this tiny lot. But if he were to match the actual density of Naperville Station, he'd build about 17 townhomes on this lot. And the proof that this project doesn't actually fit in the land is that he's seeking a variance to the rear setbacks. When the city has allowed townhomes on R2 Lane in the past, it's always on the condition that the buildings actually fit within the standard rules. The moment a developer has to ask you to change the property lines to squeeze in more units, it becomes a precedent. If a project can't fit without creeping closer to the neighbors, the project's simply too big for the land. My biggest worry is the precedent that it sets for the rest of Spring and Mill Corridor. If we were to let a developer enter into these types of parameters, what happens when somebody wants to redevelop the neighboring Ozinga concrete site or the older house down the street? Of course, they're going to have a precedent. They're going to say, Kramer was able to build like this, so why won't you let me? I understand the conditional use is supposed to be a privilege for a project that truly fits, not an automatic entitlement for a developer to max out a lot. Because this layout breaks the R2 boundaries and even exceeds the R3 zoning cap for density, it sets a dangerous precedent for our entire street. I feel a developer just hasn't met the burden of proof to show this is a good project for our neighborhood. I'm not against building something nice on the property. I'm just asking the developer and you all to have him scale back the density of the units. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Dave Parda.

Good evening. My name is Dave Parda. I live at 420 West Spring Avenue, directly across from the proposed development. I have lived there for almost 43 years. I'm also a part-time crossing guard at Spring and Mill. I have two major concerns about this proposal, although I am very pleased to have something other than DuPage precision products across the street for 40-some years. My first concern is drainage and street flooding. For most of those 40 years, every time we get a little over an inch of rain, my front yard floods. The street floods. My neighbor's properties flood. But after DuPage Precision was gone, after the demolition, we haven't had that problem. We had an inch and a quarter this morning. No street flooding. At some point decades ago, they added one more storm drain in that corner there where the water was worst. But it connected to the same underground header. It didn't help at all. Something's got to be done about this water. And I would suggest permeable paving and more open green space to absorb the rain to require the development to absorb the water instead of having it run off. Now, the proposal out there right now looks like there's no permeable space at all. At one point, there were three homes to the east of DuPage's precision project, and they had some yard. There was some rainwater would be absorbed there. Out of the current proposal, that looks like that's all impermeable to me. So that's my first concern. My second concern is is shoehorning 25 upscale units in the parcel is going to really increase traffic. I would challenge the statement I heard earlier tonight, the decrease in weekday traffic. These last few years, the only weekday traffic we've had has been a few cement trucks. And yet, during the school year, we have northbound Mill Street backups. south past Benton Avenue. 25 upscale units, three bedrooms, million plus. That sounds like families with at least two cars each. So it sounds like there's a weekday increase in traffic to me. And the easternmost entrance into the development off of Spring Avenue nearly aligns with the alley that goes between Spring and Douglas. And I can see people coming out of that and wanting to turn left and go spring to mill. There's already a couple of cars backed up there cut through the alley. Well, that, of course, is illegal. And we have kids that play in that alley, little kids. That's just not right. That kind of density is really asking for a lot of trouble. This can all be addressed. Look at the plot plan, the proposed plan. Eliminate lot three and lot four. Make that green space. Redirect the rain so that it can go in there and be absorbed. And decrease the density. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

George Hardwich.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address this committee. I think in some ways we're asking the wrong questions. And the question I would frame is, what is the compelling public need for the variants being requested? What is the compelling public need for the variants being requested? And I think the answer is quite simple. There is none. Well, I take that back. There is one compelling need, and that is financial with all due respect to the Cramer Corporation. That's not a public need. That's a Cramer need. And I think when we make decisions about this, at some point you've got to step back and ask that question. Another important question is, what does this do to the tax base? And it's already been brought up here, the infrastructure. Now, with all due respect to the quarter study that's been conducted that was done many years ago, I live at Eagle and Douglas. Issues with flooding, issues with traffic control, issues with general infrastructure, They're all going to be impacted by trying to shoehorn 25 units in here. Mill and the Mill Street traffic that's right there is a very unique situation. You can't get in it. The only place you can go is under the viaduct at Mill Street. I don't know that any studies have been done that the police department has been asked any questions about the unique traffic situation with Mill Street where it goes under the BNSF railroad. That viaduct cannot be improved. It cannot be widened. The width of the lanes under that viaduct would not meet any modern standards. So you're not going to change that. And that's where traffic's going to go, and that's where traffic's going to want to go. So as soon as these 25 units are built, a year after they're built, we're going to be looking at, oh, what improvements need to be made to the traffic? Should there be stop signs? Are we going to try and widen the street somewhere else? Who's going to pay for that? This is not a state road. it's going to fall back to the general residents of Naperville to pay for it. With all due respect, when District 203 says they have no objection, of course not, because they're looking for more students so they can raise the 203 taxes, which are already outrageous for everyone who lives in 203. Again, as has been brought out here, if you allow 25 units to be built on this piece of property, Ozinga is going to want the same thing. The next person is going to want the same thing. This is kind of a unique area, the way it's boxed in. It's a real problem for traffic. It's going to be a real problem for the school district. The infrastructure, we've got projects going on all over Naperville right now. New water lines, new this. We're building a new water tower, I think, because the existing infrastructure doesn't support the current needs. Shoehorning 25 units into this small parcel is not a good solution. It's not good for the community. It's not good for the city. And there's no compelling need for it. Now, in respect to Kramer, certainly they don't want to build three houses there, but 25 units and then I think it's pretty disingenuous when they're asked to look at this and they reduce a 26-unit complex to 25. I don't think that's a reasonable response to community concern. Thank you very much. I think you should vote no to this requested variance.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Mary Derwinski.

My name is Mary Derwinski. I live directly across from the property. I would like to say thank you for serving on this board. What a bore. I would also like to make a correction that the petitioner made that they were all duplexes across the street. I can assure you that there are three single family residents, of which I live in one of them, and three duplexes, just to make it straight. OK, I got five things to say. Make it fast. I don't want my yard to be the retention pond. So there needs to be good water management on this property. And in the past, we have had problems with water flooding spring, the parkway, the sidewalk, our front yard, and almost up to our foundation. So I have experience here seeing it, and I would like to make sure that better water management is accomplished. My biggest concern, though, which I probably should have led with, is that the exit for the property, as it is set up right now, you have to realize that we live in the old part of town. So our garages are in the back. We have an alley. For generations, kids play in the alley. If anybody grew up in Chicago, that's where the kids hung out because it was safer than out on the street. Same in our neighborhood. My concern is that one of the exits from the property is just slightly offset the alley. So as long as If there isn't a traffic backup, it would be okay, and those people can get on Spring Avenue. But I want to make sure that it is not easy to cut through. And I don't know if it's a density issue or what would have to happen, but we cannot have that alley as a cut through for exiting the development. One of the things that could happen is you could put a speed bump in there like they do in many streets in Chicago, but because the city plows our alleys, I don't think that's a reasonable alternative to discourage cut-through traffic through the alley. Okay, that's number two. Because it is an older area, we typically... unload our groceries in the front. So we park on the street, unload your groceries, drive around to the back, park in the garage. We do not have attached garages. So I am very concerned about the parking requirements I know the petitioner says that there are more than are needed, but if you look at the diagram, there are 14 guest spots that are kind of like off in the corner. I cannot believe that someone who is visiting any of the people who will be facing Mill Street or the east side of that property will park there and not in front of my house. I just don't see it happening. So I am concerned about the number of parking spots. The other thing is if you've got a three-bedroom house and two cars, you're probably going to have stuff. And some of that stuff is going to go in people's garages. So although there are two spots in the garage for cars, I don't think every unit will utilize them for their cars and instead will park on their aprons, which means that if they have guests, it will then be pushed out onto the streets. Okay, next thing, apartments, appearance. I am happy that the property looks better than it did at our earlier meeting. It still looks to me like something that would be developed along Route 59 or at Fox Valley, but it is definitely better than it was, so I'm thankful for that. And stop signs. Okay, so our kids are older now. When they were younger, I wanted a stop sign on Mill and Spring or Mill and Douglas. Then I became a crossing guard at Mill and Douglas for 12 years. Got to see the traffic, had high school kids, very familiar with it. I was told at that time that we could not do a stop sign or a stop light on anywhere before Benton because of the way traffic backs up to and from, there's some rush periods, high school and rush hour. So if a traffic control device were to go on to spring, which I am very much opposed to for some personal reasons, Namely, they're loud, because then you have people braking and then accelerating, which I don't want to live with. And also, if you have a traffic control device there, it will funnel other traffic through the neighborhood to exit onto Mill from Spring. We will have enough traffic with the new developments. I don't want to encourage other people to use it. But the whole point of this is, is that if you have a stop sign there, and if you think about Mill Street and how it heads north to the high school, there's a light at Fifth Avenue, and it is totally impractical to have a stop sign at Mill and Spring, because even if you have them timed, it's gonna be a mess. So... CORRECTION, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ACROSS THE STREET. THANK YOU FOR SERVING. PLEASE DON'T LET OUR YARD BE A RETENTION POND. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ALLEY CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. I'M HAPPY THE APPEARANCE IS BETTER THAN IT WAS, BUT I STILL THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT BELONGS ON ROUTE 59. I would like to see more parking so that it's not in front of my house because that's where I unload my groceries. And no, I don't want a stop sign at Spring and Mill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Kathy Benson.

Morning or afternoon, commissioners. My name's Kathy Benson. I live at 51 Forest in the neighborhood. And I have been a resident for over 40 years in that neighborhood. So I'm very familiar with how valued and attractive it is to live there because of the proximity to downtown schools and the transportation network, as the developer has laid out in its proposals. However, I'm also very familiar with the challenges that accompany living downtown. And most significant of these, as Mary just indicated and some others have, is the traffic throughout the neighborhood and conflicts with the business and commercial uses that are either within, in the case of Spring Avenue currently, or adjacent to our neighborhood. In the specific instance being considered tonight, the transition from commercial to residential uses is proposed as it was envisioned by the 2007 Spring Avenue Plan. I was involved in working through that with the city. It did result in the rezoning to R2, and it was acknowledged at that time that due to the proximity to the tracks, it was likely that there would be multifamily townhome sort of development there. And I don't take issue with that. However, because multiple townhomes can only be developed conditional use in R2, it's critical that you as members of the commission take into consideration how it fits within the neighborhood. Oftentimes, this may be the look and feel. In this case, I don't believe that's the most significant issue. Instead, it's the density and the effect of traffic on the neighborhood, and not only on Spring Avenue and Mill Street at that intersection, but throughout the broader neighborhood. And also, as others have mentioned, there is highly likely the potential for similar additional development on Spring Avenue at the west end through the Ozinga, and then there's one additional property there. And whatever is established through this development is likely to follow with those additional development proposals. In 2021, the city finalized its West Side Traffic Study. This is also an important consideration in looking at the proposal before you. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but it was very important to our neighborhood and we very much appreciate that the city undertook it and made some changes as a result of it. It speaks to the traffic issues that are pertinent for this proposed development. Being located at the corner of Mill and Spring, immediately south of the viaduct, this is the primary northern entry point into our neighborhood. And Mill Street is designated as a neighborhood collector. As you know, probably know, it gets an awful lot of traffic. Many individuals at all times during the day use Spring Avenue as a means to avoid traffic further south on Mill Street if they're coming in under the viaduct. They peel off on Spring or on Douglas because traffic literally backs up and becomes quite impassable at that time. So the only way to effectively get out of the neighborhood at those high traffic time periods is basically to go to the four-way stop at Benton Avenue and Mill Street. So that means any traffic that is leaving from this development is likely, they're certainly, if they're going north, they're not going to be able to turn off of spring to get onto Mill. It's nigh unto impossible at high traffic times. What they'll have to do is they'll have to go along with everyone else and go down to that Benton Avenue and Mill Street intersection. We had people that cut through from Jefferson down to West to Benton so they can reach that intersection and avoid the Mill Street and Jefferson intersection. The concerns are laid out very clearly in the traffic study and changes were made. However, the Mill Street and Spring Avenue intersection, which has the highest crash rate listed in that traffic study, except for those along Washington, one intersection along Washington, that was not proposed to have additional safety enhancements. It was identified as really not being feasible for all of the reasons that others have already stated. The developer has not provided a real traffic study for the development. Instead, they rely on industry statistics that don't consider the actual traffic patterns in the neighborhood and those challenges that arise from that. There is some inclusion of the city's traffic study from the 2021 study in the developer's materials, but the city's study was also pre-pandemic, so it doesn't take into account any of the traffic that's also generated by Amazon deliveries, Uber deliveries, UPS deliveries, all the things that have changed since the time of that traffic study. In prepping for this meeting, our neighborhood did a survey of residents. We had 51 responses, and the highest priority of responses were around density and traffic safety. They go hand in hand, and you've heard a lot about them tonight. When the developer mentioned in their presentation the resident meeting that was hosted in January, it seemed like a different meeting entirely. I would say the January meeting really was a fiasco. As was mentioned, there was standing room only, and the slide had a nice selection of things that were done to address the concerns. And I do appreciate the changes that were made. But among the most significant was the density and the way that the development at that density would affect the neighborhood. That has not been addressed at all. So with that in mind, I would ask the developer to speak to the traffic levels on Mill Street during the peak AM and PM rush hours. How do they expect vehicles to get out of the neighborhood to their destinations because it is so congested? I would ask about the volume of delivery traffic that's expected in these luxury townhomes and how Amazon, UPS, all those deliveries will be made to the various units. Where are they going to park? Are they going to park in that designated area? Are they going to park along the street? That entryway right off a mill to Spring Avenue, it gets a lot of traffic. As I said earlier, people use it to park. get into the depths of the neighborhood. I question the conclusion that only six of potentially 50 vehicles in the development will exit in the morning and evening, unless you can guarantee that everybody takes the train and, in fact, walks to the train station from there. I don't think that's realistic. We have two breadwinners in families now, and oftentimes they both have to commute to work. And then I wonder whether with two entrances to the development and higher traffic than there was previously, will parking be prohibited on the north side of Spring Avenue to avoid that potential conflict as people turn onto Spring Avenue from Mill Street? Traffic isn't slow in this neck of the woods. It's congested, and it's at higher than normal speeds as well. So those are questions I have about the traffic specifically. In addition, the developer, as was stated, is unable to fit their requested 25 units into the property without not one setback, but three setbacks. changes. Now, this isn't a PUD. It's all individual lots. So we are not kidding ourselves by thinking there's only one variance. No, there's three variances associated with getting this into the development that he wants to make. In addition, the interior open space is basically nonexistent for lots one, two, five, and six, which constitute the periphery of the development. And although there was mention that the developer has had discussions with District 203, I didn't see that. Maybe I missed it in the materials that were provided by the city. But I do believe that it's really important to understand the more specific impacts, particularly as we have two additional developments going in. at Mill Street and Jackson, which will be six units, 11 units at Main and Benton, and then potentially 25 here. NAPR and Washington are the two smallest schools in District 203. And I think it's really important for you and for us as residents to hear about what the current state of those schools is and then how these developments collectively affect that. Because it appears to me from what I'm hearing from residents, son is out of school now, but that there are gonna be some significant issues. I did look at the school report card numbers. There's some classroom rates that are above average in the district already at NAPR and I think at Washington as well. So to summarize, given the complexity and traffic challenges in the area, I don't believe any setback request should be granted to the developer and that the number of units here should be less than 20. Those additional properties on West Spring Avenue, those are yet to develop. And what's ultimately accepted for this proposal will play a large part in what comes before you again for those others. All of these developments need to fit in the neighborhood. My concern at this point isn't so much the look and feel. It's what it does to the surrounding neighborhood in terms of how it affects an already very troublesome traffic situation in the neighborhood. And while it's far less about the look of the units, they've been improved, it's also about the density and the resulting impact on that. Our neighborhood has a very good history of working effectively with the city on development proposals affecting our neighborhood. The reason that the 2007 Spring Avenue plan came about was because of the neighborhood. It wasn't because of the city. It was because of the neighborhood identifying the need for it. So I hope that you will take our concerns of density, traffic, and the effect on schools to heart when you consider the action on this proposal by denying the currently requested conditional use because of the density and and of course also the example it sets for development on the remainder of the Spring Avenue properties. Thank you.

Thank you. I do want to ask a question for the commission if we want to take a five-minute break now. All right. So we're going to stop now, and we will reconvene in five minutes. Thank you. It started. Secretary Wright, can we have the next speaker, please?

Lynn Hamilton. Sorry about that.

Oh, can you hit the button right there, right below? There you go.

Thank you. Lynn Hamilton, 903 West Benton. I agree with everything that has been said. We're against the density, the traffic, all of this. One thing that concerns me that has not been brought up is the lack of affordable housing that's going in anywhere in Naperville. And we have myriad luxury townhomes going in. To me, there has to be a compelling reason to grant a variance. Something like including some affordable units could be that type of a thing. But there's nothing like that here. And so obviously, Craver is looking for their best financial outcome, of course. But you are looking out for the neighborhood. And so I oppose the development as proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Jennifer Bruzan-Taylor.

Good evening. It's been a while since I've been on this side. My eyes are not as sharp as it used to be to read the notes. My name is Jennifer Bruzan Taylor. As some of you may know, I'm a former Naperville City Councilwoman. And so thank you for what you guys are doing tonight. I know what it's like to be on that side and make important decisions. I also live four houses down from this development on Spring. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. I'm very familiar with this intersection. Actually, we'd mentioned about the master plan. I voted for that when I was on city council. And what isn't discussed is behind the scenes, all the work that I did to keep it at the R2. And the main reason was so we could keep the density down. So density has been an issue from the very beginning on the mindset for the neighborhood regarding this area, which we do and have always wanted to be redeveloped, but also in a responsible manner. So a word here that comes to mind is unfixable. Unfixable. That is how the 2021 Westside Homeowners Association Traffic Study describes the intersection of Mill and Spring. Why? Why is this intersection unfixable? Is due to the wide variety of crashes that occur there. Most intersections have one type of crash they can easily fix somehow. This one has such different types that occur there. that it is considered unfixable. And you don't have to believe me. Just look on page 39 of the 2021 road traffic study. Also on page 39 and page 50, it describes this intersection of Mill and Spring as the most dangerous intersection in the neighborhood. Why? Because it has not only the highest number of crashes, but the highest number of injuries that have occurred at that intersection. There are many people in this room who have either been involved in or witnessed accidents at Mill and Spring, myself included. I've witnessed at least three, one including a pedestrian in the crosswalk, by the way. And I, myself, last year, as some of you may know up there, was involved. in an accident there at Spring and Mill where I was T-boned. And where I was T-boned was exactly where my three-year-old was sitting in his car seat. Blocked that street for a good hour. Car was on drivable. Van was on drivable. I was in a good old hefty minivan. Thank god or I would have had serious injuries to my then three-year-old who got right hit at the side. And my van took three months to fix. I think the insurance company regretted that decision to fix it. And because of that, myself, and there's many people in this room who will tell you, they don't drive in that intersection. They avoid it if they can. Go roundabout ways. Even though it's right there, I can see it. Like, right where would that be? I don't go that way anymore. And the other interesting thing is you look at page 50 of the Woe Traffic Study. And it also says that part of Mill has an above average number of cars for Collector Street. Because remember, Mill Street's supposed to be Collector Street. It's not an arterial street like Washington. But yet, that intersection is the highest number of crashes in the neighborhood and unfixable. So then why would we put such a dense development on that corner? Especially since we know we know that the other side of Ozinga is Is going to be redeveloped in townhomes or that's the plan that will be submitted very soon and the Ozinga property itself is is closing down operations. And that's going to be redeveloped as well. And it's going to be townhomes, most likely, all down. So we can't look at this as just this development. We have to look at the street as a whole and the density and what that does to the safety in the neighborhood. Now, we're not a bunch of NIMBYs with subjective comments about traffic concerns. Unlike the petitioner who has a memorandum, he's calling a traffic study, but not even his traffic engineer calls it that. It's called a memorandum. And anyone who's familiar with traffic studies, like I'm sure you guys are, I know I am, this is clearly not a traffic study that was done. It was pointed out to him many times. I've had many discussions with him, but they still keep calling it a traffic study. But we have a traffic study from 2021. And it was a traffic study that was unbiased, paid for by the city with taxpayer dollars, not by a developer who is trying to, or there's an incentive to make sure that they only submit a traffic study that's in their favor. And our traffic study is 120 pages. And it's a traffic study that specifically calls out the intersection of Spring and Mill and how dangerous it is, and then how that danger is unfixable. Many of you up there know me. You know that I am pro-development. And I have, as a councilwoman, voted for developments in my neighborhood. But always, whether it was my neighborhood or any neighborhood when I took a vote, it was always about safety for me. And I'm here tonight because of safety. Tonight's my son's 11th birthday. I don't want to be here tonight. This is the last place in the world I want to be here. I want to be. But I'm here because I'm concerned about his safety, concerned about the safety of the rest of the people in the neighborhood, and the people who drive through our neighborhood, and even the future residents of whatever's put there at that intersection. The petitioner bragged here tonight about how walkable this will be to the train. And if you're looking at something on paper and you don't actually know the intersection, you haven't driven there, you would think, oh, yeah, look at the mileage. It looks great close to the train. Any person who has any sense of knowledge of that knows that no one is going to be crossing there to walk to the train unless they have a death wish. And I say that as a runner. I'm a pretty good runner. I was a varsity runner, fast. I won't even run across that intersection. And that was even before my vehicle accident. My ask here tonight is that the density is reduced for this development. They're asking for conditional use. That does not mean that just because townhomes in general are good use for that spot, that 25 townhomes on a 2.3 acre is a good use for this location knowing its issues. The fact that he needs Multiple backyard variances shows that you should not be fitting in so many units. And I have reached out to my network, to people I know in the development community in Naperville, whether it's actual developers, architects, or attorneys. And what a common theme I heard, and they are watching, they know about this development, is that 17 to 18 units is the responsible number. That was what I heard. That should be built on this site, knowing with the issues with this intersection. And finally, I'm going to leave you with this thought. Notice. That is a basic requirement rules clearly laid out in the city ordinance. Notice. Notice is so important that it's considered jurisdictional, meaning that without proper notice compliance, anything approved by the city in April is subjected to judicial revocation. Code 4.5.3 requires that, open quote, the name and address of the petitioner and property owner, close quote, BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS THE OPEN QUOTE, THE OFFICE ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE CITY WHERE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PETITION MAY BE OBTAINED, CLOSED QUOTE. IN THE NOTICE PROVIDER, KRAMER LISTS THE OWNER AS, OPEN QUOTE, KRAMER HOMES LLC, CLOSED QUOTE. BUT ACCORDING TO THE DEEDS, IT SHOULD BE, OPEN QUOTE, KRAMER RESTORATION OF DUPAGE COUNTY LLC, CLOSED QUOTE. THE WRONG NAME WAS PROVIDED. CODE'S NOT MED MED. THEY DO NOT LIST AN ADDRESS FOR THE PETITIONER OR THE OWNER AS REQUIRED. They do not provide an office address and phone number for the city or information concerning the petition may be obtained as required. I did not take a tape measure to the height of the lettering on the sign. I just didn't have time. Again, son's birthday, not the most important thing. However, in all my years, I have never not been able to read what a sign says from the road. So I'm suspicious as to that as well, but I don't have proof to that. And by the way, the railroad was not sent a letter of notice as well. So if Kramer cannot follow the simple rules as to notice laid out in the ordinance, rules so simple but yet so important by not being followed, gets any development petition approved automatically thrown out in court if he is sued over it. then how can we trust that what is approved will be built according to city ordinances and what has been approved for him? And for how badly the residential meeting went back in January, where there was over 100 people in attendance. And I know that city staff told him afterwards repeatedly to please reach out to the neighborhood again. or at least to certain people in the neighborhood, that none of that ever occurred. I mean, I had unanswered emails. That is concerning as someone who is not listening to what the neighborhood actually wanted. And before I sit down, I want to ask everyone in this room who is against the current Kramer plan to please stand up. Thank you. So please vote no for the conditional use and the rear yard setback variance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Anthony Kudrys.

Don't worry. You're not the first one.

Kudrys is the most common. Bear with me. I'm going to pull up my notes here. All right. Well, hopefully you're having as good a time as I am. I wanted to start out and just comment on that we saw two presentations tonight. And both of them were markedly different. They had different goals. They had different presentation styles. They had different things that they took into consideration. I'm really excited about the development on Ferry. They didn't have to go out and do the extra effort of planning the extra green space. It's a vacant lot that's overgrown. They didn't have to take into consideration the traffic or how it's going to affect the local school system. They did that. They showed up prepared. And again, they could have fit in 10, 15 more units. And we look at this project, and really it's about maximizing profit. On a lot that held three small homes, they're planning or proposing to place 25 townhomes. Now, I'm not a lawyer or a developer. But my day job, I work in data and analytics. And I know that you can fudge the numbers a little bit here and there to make things look the way you want them to look. But the numbers that they're providing aren't even reasonable. They're either completely out of date or they're just laughably inaccurate. Now, I'm not here as a data analyst. I'm here as a father. I have three young daughters. Next year, all three of them will be at Naper Elementary. And I'm super excited to finally realize the full benefit of my property taxes by having three kids finally in public school. Great school. Naper Elementary is fantastic. I wouldn't want my kids to go anywhere else. The one thing is, it is so overcrowded that they're scurrying to make room, seating for all of these kids in each of these classrooms. It's an old school. There's not a lot of room. And it's gotten to the point where they have to send the fifth graders to the junior high one year early. And they have to go there and they segregate these kids at the junior high because they're too young to be experiencing what sixth, seventh, and eighth graders are experiencing. Now, we have a number of new construction either proposed or in the works. And it's really concerning because where are we going to put these kids? If the townhomes by the train tracks on Washington, or by the Children's Center, if they don't have kids in them now, that are school age, there's going to be some school age kids in the near future, right? They're town homes, so young families are there. Young families generate children. Children have to go to school somewhere. So that's really, I have all the same concerns as well about where's the rainwater going to go? We live in a very marshy part of town. People, the more new construction we see, the more we see flooding issues or water pooling. People's ejector pumps are pointed at each other. It's like a battle of water. I don't know. So the traffic stuff, everybody said it. I'm not going to get into it again. I mean, they said it way more eloquently than I could. But I don't think it's common that a group this size shows up. to zoning commission in the middle of the week. This is a very smart community, a caring community, a diverse community. There's people that have all kinds of different viewpoints, and they come from different backgrounds. I grew up in the city of Chicago in a house that looked very similar to the houses that were on this lot. When I lived in Chicago growing up, the houses were so close together that we had what's called gangways. And really what a gangway was is you had a window facing each other from both houses, and you could open the window and pass your neighbor a beer. And now I live in Naperville, I have to actually get out of my house and go walk over and have a beer with my neighbor. So it just blows my mind that we're looking at what was, a while ago, three parcels. And now we're going to cram 25 units? The math just doesn't add up. So I think we're all very reasonable. The people in this room are extraordinarily reasonable. They let me. They welcome me. So I mean, I can't believe that. I wouldn't blame them if they tried to get rid of me. But I think. There needs to be a lot of work to come up with something that looks like what we saw earlier in the night off a ferry that takes into consideration all of the things that make this community. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

All right, Madam Chair. I have to go back. I think Richard Payne.

Thank you so much. I promise I won't keep you very long. My name is Dr. Richard Payne. I'm a professor emeritus from North Central College. I've lived in Naperville for 44 years now. And my home is near the corner of Eagle Street and Benton. You've heard a lot about density, the effect on infrastructure, the inability of the area to contain all of that. I want to apply it to two things. First of all, the issue of context. Second, the issue of safety. In terms of context, you've heard several people mention the idea that children are by there a lot. That's because if you stand at the spot where this development is suggested and you look to the north, you will find Naperville North High School. If you look to the south, you will find not too far away Naperville School Elementary. And if you look toward the east, you will find pretty close Washington Junior High. So it's a nexus point where a lot of children are wandering around. Not only the children, but their parents are frequently there. And that's where I'm going to segue into the issue of safety. When you have that many children around and you have cars dropping off those children and then picking them up in the afternoon, the streets get amazingly congested. We live about a block away, as I said. Our entire street in front of our house going down another block or two and around the corner gets filled every afternoon with cars. You have a lot of children and their parents walking up and down the street. And the approach that's often taken is not a safe one. There are signs saying, for example, don't park beyond this sign. But there's still a ton of cars parked there. We have had so many screeching accidents in front of our house where somebody thinks there's a stop sign where there isn't. And so cars either collide into each other or virtually collide into each other. We've had cars thrown up on the lawn. One particular afternoon, I was in my own driveway about to back up. someone pulled into our driveway thinking it was a public parking lot. So what you have heard about not just the inability of streets to handle this, but in terms of how people handle those streets and the way they drive on them, raises a concern. Add more cars, add more people, it gets worse. The other issue of context I want to mention is the fact that as you've had construction on Washington, and that's been diverted to other streets, or as mill gets more and more busy, other streets around that also become more congested. So please consider the issue of context as you look at it all. And thank you so much, and enjoy your evening, what's left of it.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Tom Turnbull.

Hello, my name is Tom Turnbull. I live on 20 South Parkway Drive. And I've been there about two years. So I've experienced some of the traffic concerns that have been mentioned earlier. It is definitely the cut through traffic going through the neighborhood is extreme. At certain times, I hadn't really anticipated the amount of cars adding 25 more units and more, as people have said. It's not 25. We're talking about possibly 50 if you're not restricting the zoning. I think some of the meeting that was discussed earlier in January, we had, I would say, probably 100 people there who were the majority. And I say the majority. I think there's one person that seemed to be supportive of this. The majority of us and the comments made were about density. It wasn't about design and what the roof looked like or what the green space was going to look like. It was the density, knowing that there wasn't enough room there. Even though it meets the requirements at 4,000 square feet, it is at the max level of occupancy and density. And I think what we've heard tonight, and I think it's universally within this group, the message is it's too dense. It's too many units for that. For the neighborhood, it's out of character with the neighborhood. It's going to create stresses on traffic, on schools, stormwater, which is definitely a consideration. And I don't see that there's been any major concessions in terms of density. And I think it's due to the true economic nature of this development. They're looking to maximize profit and get as many houses on there as possible. It's not in the benefit of our neighborhood or the downtown neighborhood area. So I'm hoping that you will reconsider any approvals of this size development there and future developments on that street. And something else I want to point out is that on North Laird, I believe the development there, there was about 10 single-family homes in the cul-de-sac that went in probably five years or so ago. There was no empty lots. I mean, they were all occupied and very close to the train tracks. So I kind of wondered why was there the thought that if that was acceptable five years ago and the type of location, even though it's close to the tracks, that people were willing to to build homes that right now are $1.5 million plus, why wouldn't that be acceptable a bit east of there? I think it's something to consider, that that was a viable location for people who are looking to build downtown. And there's very little open land. And I think that single family homes might be an option for some of that location there. And it's certainly clear of the density issue. So that's it. I think every, the zoning issues and the density, I think have been the major comments. I hope for your support in finding a better solution to this, developing this piece of property. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker. Lisa Cassidy. Mary Hamill. Did I miss anyone? All right.

Yes.

Ma'am, did you sign up?

I did not. All right. Can you please raise your right hand? Hold on. I messed up my binder. Let's see. Hold on. I apologize. I've got... I really made a mess of my mind. I swear to say the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. I apologize. Please proceed. Say your name.

My name is Kellene O'Leary. I live on Eagle Street in the neighborhood just north of the tracks.

Could you spell your last name?

O-apostrophe-L-E-A-R-Y.

Thank you.

I just wanted to give you my perspective as a mother who often walks her daughter to Naper Elementary. I have three kids, one who currently goes to Naper and the other two soon will. And when we walk to Naper, we have to walk down Mill to get there. But we don't cross Spring at the Mill and Spring intersection because it's already so busy. myself and other moms in the neighborhood, we actually prefer to walk down Spring and cross at Eagle, where there is no stop sign. There's a crosswalk, but no stop sign. So you'd think that would be harder to do than at the stop sign at Spring and Mill. But because Spring and Mill is already so busy, we all prefer to cross at the crosswalk. We'll just take our chances rather than do it at Spriggan Mill. And that's the route we all take to get to Naper Elementary every day. So my concern would be adding 25 units at the Kramer property is just too many for that size lot. So I would ask you to vote no tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? Yes. Yes. Have you been sworn in? Can you please state your name?

Michelle Zajac. What was the last name? Z-A-J-A-C. All right.

Thank you.

I live at 221 West Benton Avenue. I happen to be probably older than most of these people here because I'm a fifth generation Napervillian. I grew up in the neighborhood. My great grandmother lived at 210 Spring, which is where she grew up. And then when she was married in 1908, she actually moved to 517 Spring. My grandparents moved in from the farm. They lived at 10 Southwest Street. And my parents built their dream home at 1041 Douglas. I know the neighborhood. And I would like to request a more comprehensive study in concerns to the traffic and the impact in the neighborhood. I was asked during break time to speak because I had talked to both Mary and Kathy. And Mary had said that there was a two-way stop sign at Mill and Douglas. And that is true. But up to the late 70s, it was actually a four-way stop sign. it was removed and turned into a two-way stop sign because as Naperville North transitioned into a four-year school, they wanted better traffic flow for the city. And I think just about every one of my family members has had an accident there because of it. So that is one thing that I wanted to address on. And the other was that Kathy talked about the changes from COVID in concerns to the delivery drivers, that are impacting also with traffic. And I can't speak for Uber Eats or DoorDash, but I can tell you that prior to 2020, DHL drivers averaged between 30 to maximum 60 stops a day. They now average during this low time 80 to 90 stops a day. UPS used to average between 60 to 80 stops a day. They are now, the average driver in this neighborhood is 180 stops a day. Now, there's no differentiation between dropping off and picking up. And I happen to know that for a fact because I own the boxes, et cetera, shipping store. So I do know that I am right on that. So I would like that you take a more comprehensive approach in studying the traffic Because what we're seeing from the developer is not what is reality. And both Mary and Kathy brought up some very good points and concerns to the traffic.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak tonight? Yes. Have you been sworn in? OK. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND RESPOND, I DO. I SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. I DO. MY NAME IS CATHY SHAHO, X-I-A-H-O-U.

I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. I feel like my community here has spoken very well, and I agree with their points. But I just wanted to add three little points. As a mother of three children, elementary age, I moved to the neighborhood when my youngest was one month. And he's about to start kindergarten at Napier Elementary. And I just wanted to drive home the point that NAPR is a K through 4 school. The fifth graders go to the junior high nearby. So just personally, I would love to have had my three kids in the same school for two years, but it's just one year where they'll all be in the same school because of K through 4. And then two points regarding traffic. From what I observed before the homes were torn down at that corner where they want to develop, it was three or four residential units. And now they've been torn down. So there's nothing there. There's no traffic being added to that site. And already, my kids are in soccer and baseball at Kendall Park. And we live at the corner of Mill and Benton. So when we go north on Mill, and we'd like to ride our bikes if we can instead of driving, it's very dangerous at Mill and Spring. Even now, without any added traffic and with those units torn down, I would think there would be less traffic. It's very scary to ride our bikes across Spring at that corner to go to Kendall Park. When you're coming south from Ogden on Mill, past the high school, past the stores, You go under the viaduct. And your vision is a little bit blurred by the big bridge, the viaduct. And people are going from a 30 mile per hour north of the viaduct to 25 miles per hour in the residential. And people are not following the speed limits as it is. They're flying under the viaduct right to that spring and mill corner. And it's a very scary intersection. wanted to drive those three points home as someone who lives in the area, and that's the reality of having young children and trying to walk that neighborhood. So as a mother of three, I just respectfully ask that you vote no tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other members tonight that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Have you been sworn in? All right. Please raise your right hand. Respond, I do. I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Please state your name.

My name is Mike Hoffman. And I wasn't planning on talking, but all these wonderful people really explained our situation really well. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an architect. My background is mental health. a police social worker here at Naperville Police Department for 30 years. I started in 1985 and retired in 2016. The reason I share that is just my perspective on all this is you know how I did my job when I would come into people's lives when they were struggling with domestic violence or mental illness, a squalor-conditioned home? I had to join them in their situation. I think you would agree, if I just came in and told people simply how to fix their situation, it would be so simple, and I'd work another 30 years out there fixing people. You don't fix anything without joining it and being a part of it. I don't feel like this situation is doing that. In my capacity, the way I worked, the way I helped people in this community for 30 years was by joining them and helping them help them help themselves. You have all these people giving you reasons why the situation doesn't work. And when I would have people tell me, gee, well, the behavior is this and this and this and this, it's not what the behavior is. Because that's easy to identify. You heard all these people tell you how difficult it is if this project goes the way it goes. It's why the behavior exists. That's what I would help people understand is the root cause of the behavior. That's how you fix something. I feel this situation is just being forced on us. I wouldn't be successful. I wouldn't have lasted 30 years of my job if I just went into people's homes and just told them what to do. It doesn't work that way. When you're struggling and you're struggling with your situation, you need somebody to help you, guide you, and join you in that journey. I would empower people with education. I would support them in their efforts. And then I would also navigate them through the system. And I just don't feel like... I think this system needs to really respond that way. I feel like we're only here because if I go to the why part, the why is maybe just this development, which I don't know if it's a development as much as it's an investment. If this person wants to maximize their profit margin, we all have to deal with the outside of that. I wouldn't be a city worker, a functioning, helping person in the community if I just went into people's homes all throughout this community for 30 years and just told them how they have to behave. That's not how you fix anything. So I just think that It's unfortunate in some ways that we even have to be here when I don't feel like. I live on Ewing Street, 119 Ewing. And when my beautiful wife and I moved in there, it was a gravel road. But it was always an outlet for people to get off of Mill Street, come down Ewing. And they didn't even care there's potholes there or anything like that. But it was a gravel road, but they I just want to say that I think that it's unfortunate that it isn't looked at more about why we are here. I don't think a person's pursuit of maximizing their investment should outweigh all these people's lives having to miss out on their family time to battle a situation for one person's desire to make the most amount of profit. That I don't think is the way to really work in the benefit of the community. I just wanted to say that. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? Yes. Please come forward. Did you raise your right hand? Have you been sworn in? All right. Please respond. I do. I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

All right. State your name.

My name is Jenny Monroe. I grew up at, what was it, 411? 411 Spring Street, right? And now I live at 437 Douglas Street, so I made it kind of across the alley, and that was about it. When I was a kid, that area was very safe. We did play in the alleys, you know, and that's one of the good things, and one of the, One of the great things about living in downtown Naperville, especially in those older neighborhoods, is the kids were safe. And you come back, and people knew each other. They looked out for each other. If you were going to do something to your house, you probably checked with your neighbor. You probably talked about it. That's what's great about Naperville. That's why people live here. I come back. I don't have kids. I don't really have any skin in the game, except for the kids in the neighborhood. I look out for them as if I knew them. I usually don't. I'm not the socialist of neighbors. But nobody would be safe there. I mean, hearing the proposal about what they're going to build and how many people they want to cram in there, it's just not really what I would think is the best of Naperville at all from somebody who grew up here. it's already bad enough for the poor kids who are trying to walk to school, the poor moms who are worried about their kids. It's already bad enough. And that's it.

That's all I got. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak tonight on the case? All right. So if that's time. Where am I? Oops. Yeah, I messed up my books. All right, are there any other members that would like to speak tonight? All right, let's move to the commissioners. Please note that the questions may be directed to the petitioner or members of the public after the closure of the public hearing. Further comments should be saved for deliberation, which will occur after the closure of the public hearing. I will start with Commissioner Longenbaugh.

Thank you so much. And I want to thank everybody for coming tonight, for their comments here, for their comments in writing. I know this has been under discussion for a while. Successful developers partner with the neighborhoods in order to get a good product. And they address the concerns in those final designs. And it does sound like Kramer made some changes after this meeting earlier this year. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE RESIDENT TESTIMONY TONIGHT AND IN THE WRITTEN COMMENTS GIVES ME PAUSE ABOUT THE PROCESS AND REALLY WHAT HAPPENED. SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER AND A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TOO. SO STARTING WITH THE PETITIONER, YOU MENTIONED THAT DISTRICT 203 HAS NO ISSUE WITH THIS, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A LETTER FROM THEM IN THE PACKET. SO WAS THAT PROVIDED AND WE JUST DIDN'T SEE IT?

So we spoke with 203 and we spoke with 203 a number of times and what they indicated is that they did not want to provide a letter to the commissioners because of the nature of this, the resistance to this project. But they did want to, they made it clear to staff and as well they made it clear to us that they do not object to this development.

Staff is at, did District 203 tell you they did not have an issue?

As part of any residential development, our project managers, our staff reaches out to the school district to see if they have any comments. And they did say that they did not have any comments for this proposal.

Okay, so it was that they had no comments. They did not tell staff that they had no issue with it. They just had no comments about it.

They said they have no comments and that's typical for their response. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Second question is that in your drawings, the preliminary site plan mentions common area. It was like in a little tiny little box in the, in the corner. I'm wondering what that common area was. Was that just the driveway or is there meant to be a park or shared area? I just didn't know what the common area was because I did not see it on the drawing at all.

So there's a, 35% of the 2.3 acres is green space. And there's common areas in the northern part of the site plan. And then between lots three and four, there's the backyard and also some common space between those lots.

Could you bring that up on the drawing just so that we can see what that's supposed to be?

So you can see here, there's green space here. between these lots and then green space at the rear parts of the entire site plan.

OK. So that's the common area. OK. All right. So now I have questions for staff. Thank you very much.

Yep.

OK. I'm just looking for just some clarification on R2. And so I have two questions about that. What's the difference between R2 and R2 conditional use? And then second is, how do you calculate the 25 units? And where is that explained in the municipal code? I just couldn't really find the exact things. Just kind of just for clarification for me and for anybody else what those differences are.

SURE. SO THE R2 DISTRICT IS SINGLE FAMILY AND LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. AND SO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES OR TOWN HOMES ARE A CONDITIONAL USE UNDER THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT. So if someone comes in with a development, they must request a conditional use and respond to the standards for the conditional use request, which comes before Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. And could you repeat your second part of the question?

Yeah. How do you calculate those 25 units?

Yes. So that is under the area requirements section of the code. And so it is a unit per 4,000 square feet. So taking a look at this proposal. THE PROPOSAL IS ABOUT 10,541 SQUARE FEET OR 2.3 ACRES. AND SO YOU TAKE THE NUMBER OF, YOU DIVIDE IT BY THE 4,000 AND GET YOUR MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT ARE PERMITTED PER 4,000 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING. I JUST WASN'T SURE EXACTLY HOW THAT WAS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

Sure, absolutely. Our student representative, Sarah. Thank you. I was just wondering, I'm a little concerned about traffic. I was looking at the analysis that was provided and it stated that during Saturday peak hours, the net change was expected to be as much as 18 additional vehicles. And I would expect that to be a little conservative as well. Given that and the plethora of personal concerns that we've heard tonight, Is there anything else the petitioner can say about traffic and whether or not a more comprehensive study was conducted or whether additional preemptive measures could be taken if this were approved?

So the traffic analysis that was provided notes that there is a a net increase during the weekend because the prior uses.

Excuse me. I'm going to interrupt you. Can you lift your mic just because it's hard to hear you.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Is this better? The prior uses were industrial and commercial by nature. And so there was more weekday traffic and not a lot of weekend traffic. given the prior uses at the site. And so that's why you see a net increase on the week ends, and you see a net decrease in the traffic during the weekdays. And then can you remind me of the second part of your question?

Yeah, just based on all of the personal testimony that we've heard, are there any more comprehensive studies that could be conducted if this were to be approved? Because I'm hearing a lot of concern about just the nature of the traffic in that area.

So given the previous high intensity uses, this newer lower intensity use does address part of the traffic concern during the weekday hours. As far as an additional analysis, we've also worked closely with the city engineers on whether this intersection would qualify for stop controls. And what we've found is that this intersection does not and cannot be. SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL STOCK CONTROLS GIVEN THE STATE REGULATIONS REGARDING THOSE CONTROLS. AND I'M GOING TO LET MY COLLEAGUE STEVE, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. STEVE CORKRAN. I'M DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AT ERICKSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES. SO WE ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, PER Our original analysis, we did what we generally call, and it's in our report, a traffic assessment. And that's very typical here in both the Chicagoland area and the city of Naperville. When you have a low trip generation type of a development like this, we don't go through the full study where we do traffic counts and other things, because the amount of traffic we're generating is quite low. We submitted that and provided that information. We also provided a comparison with what the prior uses were. We're not actually reducing traffic because the uses are now vacant, but it's just a comparison. This is what the site used to generate, and here's how it's going to change with our proposed use. And we submitted that to the city. They had some comments. We went back and forth. And we provided a review. Or they then approved our traffic assessment that, quite honestly, we're not adding enough traffic to make a noticeable change in the traffic patterns just from this development. So then in addition to that, at the end of last week, we received a request from the city to look at what do we warrant a all-way stop-controlled intersection at Mill and Spring, or a four-way stop? Is that warranted, and should we do that there? We looked at, as you kind of heard in the previous thing about traffic signal warrants, for a four-way stop warrant, it's the same thing. There's a bunch of requirements that we have to review based on the manual uniform traffic control devices that we have to meet at least one of them to warrant putting in all four stop signs. And there's five requirements or warrants that we looked at. The first one had to do with crashes. Now, the interesting thing is we requested from the Illinois Department of Transportation. They keep crash records for the whole state. And they basically take crash records, like from the Naperville Police Department. They enter them in computers and send them down to Springfield. And then they collate that information. And we requested that. So back in the West Side neighborhood study, There were 16, as it was mentioned before, there were basically 16 crashes over a three-year period at that intersection. And it was identified as a high crash location for the neighborhood. We received the crash data for the last five years, 20 through 2024. And there's been a dramatic change in the crashes. It's been a dramatic drop. Now part of it, obviously, the first part of it could be COVID. But the traffic crashes then bounce back later in that time frame. So in that five-year period, there were five crashes. None of them involved had an injury. They were all property damages. So in terms of the warrants, we're looking at whether, If an intersection has five crashes in a 12-month period or six over a 36-month period, that could be corrected with a stop sign. Not all crashes are correctable by stop signs. We could meet the warrant for an all-way stop. In this case, we didn't. We didn't meet the minimum. The next had to do with sight lines. Again, we checked those, and we have adequate sight lines for people on spring. They'll turn and see approaching cars from either direction. The third one is not applicable here. It's just basically if the city knew they were going to be putting a traffic signal at this location, you could put in a four-way stop as an interim control device. That's not applicable here. We also looked at traffic volumes. And the volumes are based on how much is on the main line, in this case, Mill Street. And we had to have at least 300 cars an hour, eight hours a day, throughout the day. And that was obviously very easily met by that. But in terms of Spring Street itself, we don't come close to meeting the minimum of 200 cars over an hour for an eight hour period. The west leg carries very little traffic. The east leg carries much more traffic. But honestly, a lot of those traffic that are approaching, most of them are making right turns. So we didn't meet that warrant. And then the last warrant was kind of a collection of little things that we looked at in terms of left turn conflicts, roadway classifications. And we didn't meet warrants for that either. So we've been working, again, with the city for that. to look at alternate things to do. But at that point, we could maybe increase visibility, put some additional signage, some better striping out there. But in terms of major traffic control differences, we don't have a change that we can make. that's going to affect existing conditions that are really going to be affected by this development.

Okay, thank you. Hopefully that answers. Yeah, thank you. And then another question I had was just the concern of stormwater, which I've heard a lot. I was just curious as to whether there have been any like reports that evaluated the state and like how the development is going to impact the stormwater that is already causing a problem with a lot of these residents.

So as it relates to the stormwater, the previous impervious lot coverage was significantly more than what is being proposed here. And so there's going to be a reduction in 18,000 square feet of impervious coverage. And that actually provides a two-fold benefit to the stormwater issue. There's less volume of water running off of the site. More of it is absorbed into the ground. And there's also less water flow because it's being absorbed into the ground. And so for that reason, there's a lot less of concern regarding stormwater. And I want to pass this along to our engineer as well to perhaps speak more to the reduction in stormwater because we heard a lot about stormwater today.

I appreciate going down the stormwater. I do want to make sure everyone is aware that this starts to go outside of the planning and zoning purview and it moves into city council. So I don't mind hearing your explanation, but just know that that stormwater is a discussion for city council. Thank you.

I'll keep it very brief. Mike May with SEMCON, the civil engineer on the project. So we submitted and received approval for stormwater permit application, preliminary permit application report from the city of Naperville. And as we documented in that report, the existing condition prior to demolition had about 88,000 square feet of net impervious area. And we are reducing that to about 69,550 square feet of impervious area. So that's a reduction of just over 18,000 square feet of impervious area. That will have the benefit of reducing runoff from the site. um with the increased uh turf grass and landscaping that we'll have on the site so net we will be reducing runoff from from the site from the previous condition thank you are you good oh yeah we were just wondering where is like where on the like we're just looking and we're wondering where that reduction can be seen like on the lot Are you asking? Well, it might help. I don't know if we have an existing condition with the building, but I can spell out. The building was nearly 40,000 square feet of rooftop. There was 41,000, I'm sorry, including the gravel, there were 47,000 square feet of pavement for FOR THE PAVED AREAS, THAT INCLUDES THE DRIVEWAYS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL, AND THERE'S ANOTHER 34,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM SIDEWALKS IN EXISTING CONDITIONS. SO, AND WE'RE REDUCING THAT TO 32,000 SQUARE FEET IN BUILDING, 20, ALMOST 30 SQUARE FEET, 1,000 SQUARE FEET PAVEMENT, AND 7,700 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM SIDEWALK. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE WAS GENERALLY PARTICULARLY THE WESTERN TWO-THIRDS WAS IMPERVIOUS IN THE EXISTING CONDITION. SO WHERE WE'RE REDUCING THAT I GUESS IS OPEN SPACE GRASS AREAS YOU SEE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS IMPERVIOUS AREA THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION.

And just to interject, I think the information about stormwater is helpful to understand. But just to reiterate what Chair Robbins said is that stormwater is controlled by county ordinances and is reviewed by the city engineering team for compliance. So it again is not under the purview of the PZC. So when you do vote tonight, that's not under your purview. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right, Commissioner Abu-Baker.

Thank you, Chair. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK ALL OF YOU, THE PUBLIC WHO CAME HERE AND SHARED YOUR VIEWPOINTS AND THAT HELPED ME AT LEAST GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE SITUATION. GIVEN THAT THIS MUCH OF PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT, I'M JUST CURIOUS LIKE WHY WASN'T AND REPRESENTATIVE RAMAN ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND YOU ANSWERED IT AS WELL BUT STILL I'M WONDERING LIKE WHY WASN'T A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY CONDUCTED IN A PROJECT WITH THIS MUCH OF OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH IS KIND OF STILL CONFUSING TO ME.

So the traffic study or the traffic analysis that we did with and submitted to staff, we worked closely with staff on. And we wanted to make sure that we addressed as many of the concerns as we could. There are existing traffic patterns that we have no control over. And all we can do is study the impact that this project is going to have on the existing traffic patterns. And so we've worked comprehensively with them. We've looked into whether we can provide any additional traffic controls as part of this development. We've worked with the city staff on that issue. We've run the numbers. We're trying to determine what type of impact this is going to have. And it comes up the same every time. This is going to have a nominal impact on the existing traffic patterns in the neighborhood. And there's not much that we can do as far as the Spring and Mill intersection. We're not allowed to put a traffic control stop sign there. That's not something that we can do.

OK. I have one more question related to the number of variances being requested here. Considering the number of variances you are requesting, what was done to limit the number of variance requests? In a sense, what I'm trying to ask is, did you consider Lowering and I know you went down from 26 to 25, but did you consider lowering it further down?

to limit the or Exclude the number of variances or limit the number of variances so petitioners requesting one variance It's a rear yard setback variance along this and I think you can see up here along this board Yeah, yeah That variance, the conditions to evaluate whether a variance is appropriate in this instance is whether we're maintaining the character of the neighborhood and whether there's any unique characteristics that affect this property. And in this case, because the northern boundary line is the BNSF railroad tracks, and that is a permanent buffer, What we found is that a variance is minimally invasive in a situation like this. We're not seeking to encroach onto any other neighbor's property or it doesn't affect any of the neighbor's properties to the rear because it is, again, the railroad tracks back there. And ultimately, it won't alter the characteristics of the neighborhood itself. I mean, these homes don't come any closer to the tracks than the other types of homes that are up against the tracks in the neighborhood. They're all sort of comparable in that way, in the distance that you come up to the tracks. Thank you.

Commissioner Poncelle. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. And thank you all the speakers who came out this evening and shared your concerns. I really appreciate each and every of you being here this evening. So my first question is pretty much the addition to what Commissioner Abu Baker asked. Most residents are OK with the development, but they are not OK with 25 units. If it would have been 18 to 20, probably they're fine. So I believe you partially answered that. My question was, will there be any possibility to reduce those number of units?

I think that this plan was developed to be consistent with what the code allows for at a site like this and of this size and of this nature. And given the unique characteristics of this site, given that it's bordered by a concrete plant to the west and the railroad tracks to the north, the thought was look at the code and what does the code And then what is the land use master plan looking for at this site? And so that's what drove the decision for this site plan.

Okay. Secondly, the proximity of the proposed development to the railroad. Was there any study or any concerns about the train noise, vibration, or the operational impacts for the future residents with that proximity to the railroad?

So it's always taken into consideration, and as part of that consideration, the Development includes a six-foot fence along the northern boundary line, as well as a number of landscape plantings to buffer the noise and impact that the tracks have on the homes on the northern part of the property.

Okay, and the last, one of the variants you have asked was the proposed rear yard setback on lot three to lot five was only 12 to 14 feet. That includes two AC units as well. So how will this adequate buffering or any kind of a maintenance access and the resident comfort be ensured while this reduced setback area? in that corner? Will that be any impact to them?

Can you repeat the question?

So the variance you've asked is pretty close to the lot three and five, which is 12 to 14. So just wanted to make sure for the future residents, like how the maintenance access or any other buffering issues will be impacting due to this reduced area.

So the... Encroachment in lot four, you can kind of see here, there's a, the rear yard kind of dips down a little bit. And so that explains that rear yard setback variance on that, for that lot is actually farther away from the tracks. than the lots three and four. Lots three, this home is the home that comes closest to the tracks. That's the one that comes 72 feet. The rest of them are actually farther away from the tracks and are all serviceable, just as serviceable given their current location.

OK.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wright.

Thank you. And like fellow commissioners, thank you guys for the presentation. I know you put a lot of work into it. I've seen the changes, and so I thank you for that. Public, we always are well. Thank you for coming out and spending the evening with us. We know this is a long, tedious process, but your voice is heard and it matters. So we thank you for being out here tonight. I have two questions for staff really quick. ONE QUESTION I THINK IS KIND OF IMPORTANT, AND WHAT IS THE REALISTIC BUY RIGHT YIELD THAT WE COULD GET ON THIS PROPERTY UNDER THE R2 ZONING IF IT WERE DUPLEXES? WHAT WOULD BE THAT REALISTIC BUY RIGHT YIELD?

So for the R2 district, duplexes are 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit.

Okay. So it would basically yield about the same number of units. If I do that math correctly, is that I'm getting about 20 units?

That is correct.

Okay. Okay. I think that's an important number for everybody to understand that, again, by right without coming to BZC, you basically could yield the same number of units on that lot without coming to BZC. Would that be a fair statement to say if it were duplexes?

We would, of course, review each proposal in its uniqueness. But just reading specifically from the code, 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit is permitted in the R2 district.

OK, thank you. And then if that variance was denied, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASONABLE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE COULD GET ON THAT PROPERTY AND STAY WITHIN COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE? I SUSPECT THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY LOSE ONE MORE UNIT AND STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE IF THE VARIANCE WAS DENIED.

So your question is if the setback variance was recommended, denial, if that would impact the number of units. So those, I guess, those are two separate, those would be two separate variance requests. THE DENSITY IS CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. OKAY. AND THE SETBACK VARIANCE, YOU KNOW, IS LOOKED AT, YOU LOOK AT THE STANDARDS FOR RESPONSES TO VARIANCE FOR THE REQUESTED REAR YARD SETBACK INDIVIDUALLY. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. AND THEN STEVE, SO BACK TO THE TRAFFIC, BECAUSE THAT IS THE HOT TOPIC TONIGHT, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS, MAYBE JUST IN A DIFFERENT WAY. COULD YOU, STEVE, ARE YOU HERE? COULD YOU KIND OF WALK THE COMMISSIONERS THROUGH THE METHODOLOGY USED TO DO THE TRAFFIC STUDY? I KNOW AGAIN READING IT, I GOT THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU SAY the proposed site doesn't yield much more traffic. I think it was like 10 cars a day or something as proposed to the old commercial development that was there. How did you get to that number?

Certainly. So first, we did comparison with the prior use, but that's really neither here nor there in the big picture. So we figured out, based on a 25-unit development, how much traffic it was going to generate based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. So it's a manual collection of survey data that traffic engineers across the country collect for all kinds of different land uses. And so we looked at how much traffic this would generate. Now, what we didn't do here, what I could have done here, was try to make an estimate. I could have looked at census data and said, Of these 25 homes, 3%, 5%, 10% of these folks may be using the train to get to work and make that reduction in traffic. We didn't do that here because, again, we're dealing with small volumes. So to shave off even smaller volumes, we're just taking up too much time for little numbers. So we didn't make any adjustments for transit in this case. And then we looked at how much traffic it was going to generate. And then just a reminder, during the morning peak hour, it would be eight cars. And in the afternoon, it would be 12 cars or trips, people coming, entering, or exiting the site. And then please note that, just to kind of address some of the comments that were just made earlier tonight, yes, With COVID and the changes in our society because of the pandemic, yeah, we're getting a lot more deliveries from the Amazon, UPS. But we're also, correspondingly, we've seen a lot less commuting traffic, people working at home more. My son works at home every day of the week. I work at home a couple of days a week, especially if I have to drive down to Naperville for a hearing. So I worked at home today. So I didn't have to drive from Grayslake. So there's some offsets. Yes, this delivery traffic is increasing, but that's also being offset by people not driving around as much. So then we took a look in table two of the report. It's like, all right, assigning that traffic to the road system, we're only adding one or two cars to any particular traffic movement at Spring and Mill. Some people are coming out. They're making a right, left, or straight onto Mill from Spring and vice versa from Mill to. You know we're adding only one or two cars now is that dramatically going to change traffic out there Yes, mill is a very busy street Adding a couple cars to be honest with you if you and I were to Spend the next week watching traffic out there We couldn't tell from day to day whether there was one or two more cars than there were the day the day before Or the hour before or etc. So that's how we came out to the conclusion that you know the traffic impact is basically nominal minimal and not to speak for city staff, they kind of agreed with that. In terms of, you know, and then as I said, gave a little more lengthy explanation, the staff did come back and said, and I'm assuming that's the response to some of the comments they were receiving, could we put an always stop there? You know, not to speak for my client, but putting up two stop signs, I think he would be more than happy to pay for that. But as professionals, we have to deal with a number of issues. And in this case, we have, As a professional engineer, I've got to observe certain rules and regulations, and so according to those standards, we can't put in an all-way stop there.

Sure, sure, that makes sense. So how did you get the old traffic numbers, the current traffic numbers, or the numbers when that was a commercial development? Certainly.

Basically the same way. I went to the client and got the information about the size of the warehouse, And there was three single-family homes, which one of them was being used as a business. So I treated that as a real small home office type of thing. I think it was an insurance agency, if I remember correctly. And went to the ITE trip generation manual and said, OK, $40,000 or whatever this square foot, hold on, I know what it is. The 30,000 square foot warehouse would generate this much traffic during the same peak hours and daily basis. A small home office would generate the x number of trips, and then the same thing for two single family homes. So again, we do that as a comparison. That's kind of standard procedure. Here's what used to be there now. But we never reduced traffic because we're generating less traffic.

So it was based off of the manual, and it was not physically counted. So this is really an estimate based on the manual, correct?

That is correct, because obviously, well, for the existing uses, they were pretty much all vacant by the time we got involved.

OK. AND THEN COULD YOU JUST MAYBE EXPLAIN TO US WHY PEDESTRIAN, BIKE TRAFFIC ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THAT TRAFFIC STUDY, ESPECIALLY SINCE, YOU KNOW, THE PROXIMITY OF THREE SCHOOLS, THE, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY HEARD TONIGHT A PLETHOR OF OF COMMENTS ABOUT STUDENTS AND PARENTS WALKING, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THAT TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUDED PEDESTRIAN AND BIKES AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. WHY WAS THAT NOT INCLUDED?

WELL, IT'S I THINK MY OMISSION BY NOT PUTTING IT IN THE REPORT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WE LOOKED AT THE WEST SIDE STUDY AND THAT WAS PARTS EXCERPTS OF THAT WAS ATTACHED TO OUR TRAFFIC STUDY FOR REFERENCE. when you looked at the pedestrian and bike volumes at the intersection of Spring and Mill, they were quite minimal. I can probably give that to you in just a second.

Is that part of a study that we could possibly get a copy of to include?

Please stop. We'll stop the meeting. Please refrain from clapping or shouting out. Thank you.

Okay. So the west side, so that was part of the appendix in the original traffic assessment. And looking here, the folks crossing Mill Street, and they looked at both the AM, the morning peak hour, the early afternoon, i.e. school time, dismissal, it looks like, and then the evening rush hour. Crossing Mill was, in the morning, zero. midday 7 and 3 pedestrians in the evening peak hour. The bikes were, again, only one or two bike trips. And then crossing Spring on the west leg by our site was a little higher. Those were five to eight pedestrians crossing the west leg and then one or two crossing the east leg. So the numbers were quite low. Also, my understanding is Naperville does Safe Routes to School studies and makes recommendations how to get kids to get to different areas. And my understanding is they're directed down to Douglas where they put in some improvements there at Mill and Douglas. They did what we call bump outs at the corners. Number one, that helps slow traffic and especially the turning traffic. And it also shortens the length of the crosswalk to improve safety. And I understand there's also crossing guards out there at least during school hours or for the school crossing times.

Is that something that we got in our packet? I don't recall seeing that information. DID I MISS IT IN THE PACKET?

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THE WEST SIDE STUDY WAS INCLUDED. THERE WAS A CITY PREPARED OR ACTUALLY IT WAS OUR CONSULTANT THAT PREPARED IT IN 2001. SO IT WAS NOT INCLUDED. IT COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO COMMISSIONERS IF YOU WOULD WANT TO REVIEW IT.

But in the appendix of our traffic assessment, the original traffic assessment, we did include some excerpts of those pages in our appendix. So that information I just read you is actually in our report in the appendix. And I agree. In the report itself that we did, I did not mention those numbers because I saw that they were low. And so I just didn't mention them.

All right, last question, and then I'll turn it over to the other commissioners. Did you say that study was from 2001?

That is correct, yes. All right, thank you. With the traffic data from 2019.

All right, thank you.

All right, Commissioner Namas. I'M JUST GOING TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER WRITE'S START WITH THE TRAFFIC QUESTIONS. DID STAFF HAVE ANY CONCERNS ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OR THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY MADE IN THEIR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS?

I THINK I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT STAFF IS WELL AWARE OF THE CONCERNS ON MILL STREET. IT'S MY COMMUTING ROUTE. I TAKE IT EVERY DAY. I SEE IT. THERE ARE TIMES OF THE DAY, PARTICULARLY AT THE START OF HIGH SCHOOL, WHERE IT CAN BE SCARY AND VERY INTIMIDATING. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT PROMPTED THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE SIX YEARS, FIVE, SIX YEARS AGO NOW. There's no quick fix. I think unfixable was thrown out there. I wouldn't use the word unfixable, but there's no easy quick fix, nothing that we could direct the developer to do to improve the situation. SO WITH ALL THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT AND ALL THE SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE ROUTE THAT THEY TAKE IF THEY WOULD WANT IS TO REACH BACK OUT TO STAFF. ONLINE REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDIES TO UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY. WHAT CAN CITY STAFF DO? AND TAKE IT THROUGH A PROCESS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL ON THAT ROUTE RATHER THAN TAKE IT THROUGH YOUR COMMISSION. BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION AND IT'S GOING TO KEEP IT'S GOING TO KEEP GETTING WORSE. I MEAN, THE CITY'S REDEVELOPING. SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT OCCUR THAT WAY. I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION?

NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ROUTE TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. WHAT I MEANT WAS FROM WHAT WAS PROVIDED FROM THE DEVELOPER ON THEIR TRAFFIC IMPACT AND BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT CITY STAFF KNOWS ABOUT THAT INTERSECTION, WERE THERE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY TOOK?

NO. THEIR METHODOLOGY WAS PRETTY STANDARD. IT SHOWED MINIMAL INCREASES IN TRAFFIC RELATED TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR REPORT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CASANOLI.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT COMMISSIONER WRIGHT WAS SAYING. IF YOU WERE DENIED THIS 14-FOOT SETBACK AND HAD TO KEEP THE 25-FOOT SETBACK, YOU WOULD END UP WITH 20 UNITS. IS THAT CORRECT? AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY?

No, I don't think that it's 20 units. We're talking about 12 feet here. And so you could potentially alter the size of some of the units in the northern part of the site and keep 25 units. It's really just a matter of we're only talking about 12 feet. The way the site plan is drawn up. So then why are you asking for the variance? Because I think that the units are more marketable. The units are a better product. They're a better home for Naperville, the way that they're currently drawn up. And the site plan, as it's drawn, is the highest and best use of this property. And those units are very nice 3,500, 3,400 square foot units. I mean, you could shrink them to, BRING THEM OFF THE TRACKS A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY'RE UP AGAINST THE TRACKS. THE INVASION IS MINIMAL.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THE SAME TO THE CITY. IF THE 25-FOOT VARIANCE, THE 25-FOOT SETBACK STAYED IN PLACE, WOULD YOU ALLOW, WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF 25 UNITS ON THAT SIZE LOT?

This is two separate requests. So the setback variance is to reduce the required rear yard requirements, which is how far back set the buildings can be. whereas the area requirements have to do with the number of units for the size of the property. So, you know, they don't, while they could correlate, they do not, you know, it's two separate issues that I don't know that we would have.

I'm just, I'm trying to understand, trying to get the number down to where it's acceptable to the neighborhood. AND TO EVERYONE HERE IN THIS ROOM, WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE, WOULD THAT NUMBER DROP? AND I'M HEARING NO, IT WOULD NOT.

I DON'T THINK SO.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL.

THANK YOU. A FEW QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF. FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY, A MEMORANDUM, OR AN ASSESSMENT.

I will turn that over to our engineer.

I'd actually like to have Mr. Cochran explain that. He is a professional traffic engineer.

To be quite honest, I don't think there is in our industry books or anything a strict definition of a traffic assessment versus a traffic study. As far as memo versus report, a memo is shorter than a longer report. But the way I kind of look at it is a traffic assessment is basically a simpler type of analysis given the facts for that particular development. So in this case, as others, if it's a low generator, and the access is very workable where it's at, then we kind of look at a traffic assessment. And we don't need to go out and do the traffic counts. I mean, traffic studies, the more traditional traffic studies, we go out and do traffic counts. So a study is a far more in-depth

Generally, yes. Okay, got it. Understood. All right, so thank you. How often is it your role as our professional study staff to recommend that a petitioner undertakes a full study?

With the development this size, we would not normally ask for a full study that required the field work. We were very specific about what we thought we would need to see, and that would be the TRIP GENERATIONS FROM THIS SITE AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THAT WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

UNDERSTOOD. IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED BY A SPEAKER AND JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO THAT A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS COMPLETED AND IT IS DATA THAT WAS FROM 2001. WAS THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITHIN YOUR ANALYSIS AT THE STAFF LEVEL?

Well, yes, it was because we'd used it and it was a basis of our understanding of how traffic works in that neighborhood.

So yes. So how often in your professional experience do traffic assessments that are done on behalf of the petitioner come back that don't support what they're looking for? Does that ever happen?

SO BASICALLY THERE'S A CERTAIN METHODOLOGY THAT THEY USE. THEY EXPLAIN WHAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE GENERATED. BUT REDEVELOPMENT ALMOST ALWAYS RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.

AND THEN BEYOND TRAFFIC, THE QUESTION ABOUT LETTERS FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM 203. I THOUGHT I REMEMBER SEEING THEM IN THE PAST. IS IT COMMON? DOES IT EVER HAPPEN THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS PROVIDE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENTS? OR THEY DON'T PROVIDE THEM? MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING SOMETHING, BUT I THOUGHT I'VE SEEN THEM BEFORE.

The school districts have provided letters before for their position on developments. I, for instance, the last case we heard, they provided a position of neutrality. I can't point to any specific cases that provided support, but that may have been the case. They do provide letters in some cases. Thank you.

Is there any reason why the school district would not provide any communication whatsoever? No.

I don't think that we could necessarily speak on behalf of the school district. It is standard process in our development process to reach out to the school district and park district and collect school and park donations.

Thank you.

Do you have another question? All right. No, go ahead.

All right. Sorry. So I just want to switch real quick to the building material. Mr. Calvo, if you or someone on your team could speak a little bit about we didn't really hear anything about the products used in specific to the building materials as it relates to noise mitigation and perhaps buffering between the Ozinga plant and the current and the proposed property. If you could speak to that just a little bit.

Sure. Rob Costello, Torch Architecture. So along the train, there'd be different window insulation systems to handle noise. We've done that on other buildings and developments we've done on the train lines in Naperville. In general, materials are brick and fiber cement. Did you want more information specifically on noise mitigation?

Yeah, I noticed that the trees were, the full grown trees along the railroad tracks were still there, which is great. You mentioned the six foot fence. Are there any other noise mitigating efforts as it relates to building materials itself and then along the Ozinga plant side as well?

Anything facing those two sides, we do additional work on the building to mitigate sound in addition to the trees and the fence.

Anything else? I think every question I had has been addressed at this point. I'll make a couple statements and then we'll move to closing remarks. I appreciate the concept of this development being a buffer. I get it. I think it's a good transition. I think it's a huge improvement to what's sitting there today. And I like that transition, especially between the train and the plant. I am struggling with the variance request and the conditional use. I really would like to see pedestrian paths. It's a great question how these folks would walk to the train. I drive this path every day. I live near here. I drop my kids off at Washington. I sit on all of the streets that have been named. And it's a challenge. And what is unfortunate about that challenge is I don't think that responsibility totally falls on Kramer. I think the issue is mill. And that is a city issue. It's a public safety issue. And this starts to go outside of planning and zoning. I've brought this up before. In the last year, we've had a lot of developments from Jackson to Deal. And I asked about the ownership when you get further down to Ogden. then we don't own the road at that point. But there's issues there with the elementary school as well and the developments that go further down. And I know you can't take into account the traffic for developments that have not been put in place yet, but we've got a problem. And we've got to figure it out. I don't think it's unfixable. I think Naperville is very good at creating public safety and coming up with a solution. I strongly suggest that Naperville do that. Because I think if you look at a hardship, I don't think it's in the variance request. I think it is in where this is sitting with this road and the development that has already gone on. So with that, I'm going to move to your closing remarks, and then we can hear any other comments.

I'll keep these brief. I know it's late. A lot of thought went into this particular development. And there's been a lot of collaboration with a lot of different parties. And I understand that there's a concern about the traffic at that intersection of Spring and Mill. The fact of the matter is that this type of development is part of Naperville's plan to try to reduce that impact of the traffic at this intersection. It's a lower intensity use at the intersection. All of the experts that have looked at this find that there would be a net reduction in traffic during peak hours during the week. And so this is the type of transition that the city is looking for, and this project delivers that transition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for DEV-0108-2025. So moved. Can I have a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Motion carries. Do any of the commissioners have any comments on this case? As a reminder, if you intend to recommend denial of this case, please state your reasons why.

Thank you, Chair. AS A FORMER NEIGHBORVILLE NORTH HIGH SCHOOL AND WASHINGTON JUNIOR HIGH PARENT, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS INTERSECTION. STAFF'S WEST SIDE STUDY SHOWED THAT IT HAS THE HIGHEST CRASH PERCENTAGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PETITIONER'S TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SAYS THAT THERE ARE HIGH DELAYS DURING PEAK HOURS, YET THERE WAS NO ANALYSIS DURING SCHOOL ARRIVAL OR DISMISSAL. THE TRIP COUNT GENERATOR DOESN'T REALLY GIVE THE FULL STORY. SO I REALLY WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT ADDING 25 UNITS HERE WITHOUT THE SCHOOL DATA INCLUDED MEETS THE PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARD REQUIRED FOR AN R2 CONDITIONAL USE. AS FAR AS THE REAL SETBACK VARIANCE, THE RESPONSE TO STANDARDS ARGUES THAT THE TRAIN TRACKS IMPOSE EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIPS But that argument requires that there be something unusual about the property. And so this feels like a self-imposed hardship caused by forcing 25 units onto the site. And so for those reasons, I'll be voting no tonight. Commissioner Abu Baker.

Thank you, Chair. So I am an immigrant to this country, to this city, and I chose to live in Naperville for a reason. And when my kids sometimes say like they want to move out to California or somewhere, I'm not the happy parent. I want to see them settle down here because I believe and I strongly believe this community is one of the most beautiful communities in this country. For that reason, I think like, you know, this proposal, even though, you know, as our chair mentioned, like the traffic accidents cannot be Kramer shouldn't be paying for all the expenses. However, if you take this particular project, and I'm going to talk my mind, speak my mind about this. I don't think this was fully prepared or completely matured into a proposal to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I think the traffic study, for example, knowing that this much of a position from the community I THINK AS A TEAM, IT'S A SUGGESTION, SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING A COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY. I'M ALSO WORRIED ABOUT CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT IF OTHER SIMILAR LOTS IN THE AREA ARE PLANNING TO COME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL, THAT HOW MUCH OF TRAFFIC CHALLENGES WHICH IS GOING TO CREATE TO THAT PARTICULAR AREA. SO FOR THAT REASON, I'LL BE VOTING NO.

I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE EVERYTHING THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ALREADY SAID, BUT I AGREE WITH HIM WHOLEHEARTLY. THIS ONE HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE FOR ME. COMING INTO TONIGHT, I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE TOO MANY THINGS THAT I SAW WRONG WITH THIS PROJECT. Kramer did an excellent job at listening to the community. I know some do not feel that way, but I think you did an excellent job at listening to the community and attempting to mitigate all of the issues that were raised as a concern. I think we missed one major piece of that, and that's the safety aspect. The conditional use requires us TO MAKE SURE THAT SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS NUMBER ONE, AND I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WE HIT THAT MARK. I THINK WE MADE EVERY OTHER CHANGE THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. THAT'S THE ONE THAT I THINK WE MISSED, AND FOR THAT REASON, I SIMPLY CANNOT APPROVE IT TONIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER NAMES.

I AGREE THAT THE CONCEPT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE MASTER PLAN. I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN SO FAR THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE CONDITIONAL USE STANDARD, THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE DENTRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY AS IT IS PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. AND THEREFORE, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS AT THE TIME AND MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CASANOLI.

Yeah, I'll keep this short. Based on what's going on on Mill Street in spring, I can't support this. I think the density of this is too great. I'm more in favor of an 18-unit complex, as was mentioned earlier. And for that reason, I'm going to vote no.

All right, Commissioner McDaniel.

I actually think this type of development is really kind of ideal for... the surrounding uses, based on the surrounding uses, I think it would be a very welcomed update from what was there prior. The pictures you guys provided, I think, aesthetically look really nice. But I can't vote based on what I think looks pretty. I certainly do think that there is a need for this type of development. And I also think that it would provide somewhat of a buffer to the terrain. But in all honesty, just because you can, you know, max out a development by adding, you know, 25 units doesn't necessarily mean you should. I've said this before in the past, and I'll say it again, I think, you know, we need to be increasingly careful and intentional about how we, you know, develop lots we have, specifically in the downtown Naperville area. At the end of the day, my main concern really is safety and the well-being of the residents walking to and from home, to and from school, into downtown. Many of us have gone up and down that street and those sidewalks many, many times. It is a concern, and it does need to be addressed. I don't feel like it was addressed here tonight. But I do want to recognize that my decision to not support is not because of the number of units in the lot. It's because of more or less the safety and concern of the residents.

Thank you. I ECHO EVERYTHING THAT ALL OF THESE COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID. I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GREAT. LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, I LOVE THE CONCEPT OF IT. I THINK IT IS A GOOD BUFFER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THERE'S THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I CANNOT APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST. I DO NOT SEE A UNIQUE HARDSHIP THERE. AND I ALSO AM NOT COMFORTABLE APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE I FEEL ALL WE'RE DOING IS EXACERBATING AN ALREADY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT AND THE CHANGES THAT YOU'VE MADE. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE OUT HERE TONIGHT. WE JUST ARE NOT THERE YET. SO THANK YOU. Well, just real quick.

No comments are permitted by the petitioner after closing of the public hearing.

Yeah. I'm sorry. OK. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Nahmes, 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-0108-2025, A CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMIT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS IN THE R2 DISTRICT AND A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING AVENUE AND MILL STREET. CAN I HAVE A SECOND?

SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SECRETARY WRIGHT, PLEASE CONDUCT A ROLL CALL.

ABU-BAKER. I DO NOT APPROVE. BONZO.

I DO NOT.

CASTINGNOLI. I DO NOT APPROVE. LANGENBAUGH.

DISAGREE WITH THE MOTION.

MCDANIEL. I DO NOT AGREE. LAMES.

I DO NOT AGREE.

ROBINS.

I DO NOT AGREE. AND WRIGHT. I DO NOT AGREE. MOTION FAILS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE'S TIME. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? WE DO NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.

SO MOVED.

CAN I HAVE A SECOND?

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. THERE'S NO OLD OR NEW. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.

SO MOVED.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.