Good evening.

I would like to call the planning and zoning commission meeting for October 15th, 2025 to order.

First, I would like to welcome our new commissioner, Alison Longenbach.

Welcome, Commissioner.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Albu Baker?

Here.

Lonzlow?

Here.

Castignoli?

Here.

Longenball?

Here.

McDaniel?

Here.

The name is here.

Ricellia?

Present.

Robbins?

Here.

Wright is here.

Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

The first order of business tonight is the public forum.

During the public forum 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 slack clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

Secretary Wright, do we have anyone signed up for public forum?

We have no one.

Thank you.

Our next order of business in public hearings.

For each hearing, we will begin with the staff presentation on 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 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 of those in attendance, please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

Following the 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 closing remarks or during the planning and zoning commission's deliberation.

I will now swear in any members of the public wishing to speak.

For 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 DEB-0094-2025.

The public hearing now opens.

Sarah Kapenski from staff will present the case.

Thank you and good evening.

Sarah Kapinski with the city's planning services team.

The subject property for DEV 0094 2025 is located at 557 South Washington Street.

It is zoned TU transitional use district and is improved with a single family home.

At this time, DJK Custom Homes seeks to repurpose the property for their professional design studio, requiring a parking lot expansion and other site modifications.

These site changes require approval of two zoning variances, one to reduce the required side yard setback from five feet to an average of 2.35 feet along the south property line, and one to allow more than 25% of the required rear yard to be occupied.

The existing structure on the subject property is approximately 1,865 square feet in size, which upon conversion to an office space requires a minimum of six parking spaces to be provided on site.

The petitioner plans to add eight parking spaces.

The property is relatively small with limited buildable area to add parking facilities.

The existing structure is located approximately 22 feet from the south property line at the narrowest point, which is where the petitioner plans to construct a new driveway access.

To provide adequate space for two-way traffic, staff is requiring a minimum aisle width of 20 feet, resulting in a setback averaging approximately 2.35 feet due to the location of the existing structure.

The municipal code requires parking facilities to maintain a five-foot setback adjacent to a property line, thus, approval of a variance is needed.

Staff is supportive of the setback variants as proposed.

Finding it allows for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles on the site while remaining compatible with the adjacent non-residential property.

Planned improvements also include adding spark parking spaces within the subject property's required rear yard.

Section 6210 of the code states that accessory structures shall not occupy more than 25% of a required rear yard.

The petitioner seeks approval of a variance to allow approximately 65% of the rear yard to be occupied.

The building will continue to comply with the TU district's required setbacks, which helps ensure visual bulk will not be a concern for neighboring properties.

An existing six-foot wooden fence will visually screen the rear yard from neighbor neighboring properties, and the petitioner has agreed to install a row of six-foot-tall arboreviety along the rear property line.

Staff is supportive of this variance request as well, since the rear yard encroachments consist only of uncovered impervious space.

Tonight we ask you conduct the could sorry tonight.

Great.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner approach the podium?

Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the commission, uh ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Michael Roth.

I'm an attorney for the petitioner.

Uh with me tonight is Dan Kittelson, who's the owner and the president of uh DJK, the petitioner.

Um we agree with everything that um Sarah said in her report.

It's an accurate report and it's pretty thorough.

Um I will just for the benefit perhaps of the public.

I don't know.

Uh so this is the uh scenario.

You can see just north of Porter on the uh west side of Washington Street, uh second lot north of Porter.

That's uh that's the subject property.

It's a relatively small parcel, point two acres.

Um it's been improved for many many years as a residential uh property.

And uh DJK is uh is a building developer, uh mostly residential, and um uh and acquired this parcel and uh would like to now use it as its uh as its own home uh for its own design services.

Uh we think that it fits in very well with the transitional use um uh zoning category and um let me see here.

Oh, I lost it.

Um so it it it'll uh the the properties in the surrounding area across the street on the other side of Washington, their OCI uh and uh uh and and a um B5 parcel just to the north, just to the west behind these properties is the um uh is is R2.

It's mostly R2 residential, in fact, all but one lot is um uh and then all along uh Washington Street on the west side, uh adjacent to this parcel, north from Porter, it's all TU.

Uh and yeah, the the the um the areas is was dead uh designated in the comprehensive plan as city corridor.

Uh we think that this use um fits in very well with the city's plan.

Um it won't impose any uh uh hardship on any of the surrounding properties.

Everything is already developed, won't interfere with any other development.

Um the movement, it's a small lot, and and the movement from the existing very narrow driveway from the north side, the north boundary of the property to the south side is what's necessary to really make this property work.

Um I suppose as a as a residential property, a yard is okay, but as a as a business, uh it really it should be um on the south side.

And in order to comply with the city's standards, uh, you know, a 20-foot wide uh driveway for commercial driveway is necessary, and and the parking is gonna be in the rear.

Um, and uh with with that um uh again being a small lot uh reducing the uh the south side yard setback from the five feet to an average of about 2.4 uh is what's necessary.

Uh also uh it makes sense to move the driveway to the south.

Um there's uh it's to make it ADA accessible.

Uh there needs to be improvements uh to the building, and that's what's happening where the driveway was.

Uh there's an existing garage, but it's not going to be used for the storage of vehicles.

It's mainly just for the storage storage as necessary for the business.

Um I would say that the the last thing is that um uh the city has had a goal of acquiring cross access uh from the properties in the rear of these properties that are in the TU, and um we've agreed to do that.

Uh doing so requires that property basically to be paved or it it will accommodate both uh the parking but also the cross cross access needs for the community.

So um we think that these uh these two variances are are fairly fairly minor, and we hope that you'll uh that you'll support them.

And um, if you have any questions, uh be happy to try to answer.

Dan is here with me, and he can also answer any questions in particular about uh construction and the development of the parcel.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I would 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.

Uh we have no one else on out.

All right, great.

Are there any other members in the public that would like to speak on this case tonight?

All right.

Do any of the commissioners have any comments on this case?

We'll start with Commissioner Namas.

No comment.

All right.

Is the city in favor of this?

I didn't catch that on your uh yes, planning and engineering are both in favor of the variances requested.

Okay, thank you.

I uh I actually think it's a uh uh a much needed smart update.

I've driven by you know that property hundreds of times, like many of us have.

Uh it's gonna look very nice and uh excited to uh to support it.

So thank you.

Commissioner Long and Bag.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I ran down there.

I have really no issues with this at all, um, especially given that it's right along Washington, it needs to have parking, and I'm in favor of both variances.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Do you have Commissioner Wright?

Yeah, I I agree with Commissioner Longall.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

Um, I really love the ADA improvements.

I think that really helps, and the landscaping plan uh to show that transition uh to soften that transition makes a lot of sense.

So I will be in favor of both variances.

Thank you.

I would also agree.

I love the investment that you're making.

I think it's much needed, and I'm in favor.

So with that, I would like to entertain a motion to close the public.

Oh, do you have any closing remarks?

Let me all right.

Are you good?

All right.

I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing for development dash 0094-2025.

Aye.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, motion carries.

Commissioner Castanoli, please read the motion.

Thank you.

I'd like to make the to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0094025, a variance to reduce the required side yard setback, and a variance to allow more than 25% of the required rear yard to be occupied on the subject property located at 557 South Washington.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

Secretary Wright, please conduct roll call.

Wright agrees with the motion.

Rachelio.

I agree with the motion.

Namas.

I agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree.

Long and ball.

Agree with the motion.

Cast ignoring.

I agree with the motion.

Bonzo.

I agree with the motion.

Abu Baker?

I agree.

Chairman Robins.

I agree with the motion.

Great.

All right.

The next case on tonight's agenda is DEB-0109-2025.

The public hearing is now open.

Sarah Kapinski from staff will present the case.

Thank you.

Again, this is Sarah Kapinski with the city's planning services team.

The subject property for DEV 0109 2025 is located at the northwest corner of Benton and Maine.

It is comprised of four parcels, totaling approximately 0.82 acres, and has historically been owned by Calvary Temple Church of Naperville.

MI Homes of Chicago is the contract purchaser of the subject property, proposing to build a total of 11 units.

Tonight, the petitioner requests your consideration of a conditional use to establish the Benton and Maine PUD, a PUD plat with multiple deviations to the municipal code.

Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the downtown 2030 plan, which designates the future land use of the subject property as North Downtown special planning area and multifamily residential.

The subject property is in a transitional area between downtown Naperville and adjacent single family homes.

The proposal features rearloaded row homes, an enhanced streetscape design, and reduced curb cuts along Benton.

Staff finds the proposal to provide a natural transition in scale and intensity between the downtown and nearby neighborhoods.

As a PUD, the development will have a controlling site plan with an enhanced streetscape that incorporates planter beds, street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting, seat walls, concrete pavers, as well as pedestrian connections to guest parking spaces at the rear of the property and approved building elevations.

Any future modifications proposed within the PUD will be subject to additional review and approval in accordance with section 646 of the municipal code.

Several deviations are requested as part of the PUD, some of which arise as a result of the unique lot shape and technicalities of the city's zoning ordinance.

Staff is supportive of each deviation requested.

In terms of density, the petitioner proposes 11 units on the property, resulting in a density of 3,165 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.

The downtown 2030 plan recommends a density of 2,904 square feet per unit.

So the petitioner's proposal is less dense than the recommended density.

The petitioner seeks approval of a deviation to increase permissible building height from 35 to 46 feet.

Staff notes that section 6233 of the code permits a building height of 57 feet for parcels with frontage along the west side of Main Street, and the downtown 2030 plan recommends a 50-foot height limitation for multifamily residential.

Staff finds the proposed height to be consistent with both of these recommendations.

The petitioner seeks approval of a deviation to allow more than 25% of the rear yard to be occupied.

The subject property has two north property lines that both function as rear yard lot lines, effectively creating two rear yards.

As a result of this configuration, up to 70% of the combined rear yards will be occupied as depicted in the rear yard exhibits attached to this agenda item.

In general, the rear yards are occupied by parking facilities that will be constructed of permeable pavers and do not result in vertical bulk for neighboring properties.

To mitigate visual impacts, the petitioner has agreed to install a six-foot fence in landscaping along the north property lines.

Excuse me.

The duplex duplex buildings are oriented towards the main street frontage.

So the north property line functions as an interior side yard when viewed from Main Street.

The TU district requires a six-foot interior side yard setback.

So the proposed 12-foot setback is double this requirement.

And lastly, the petitioner seeks approval of a deviation to reduce the required front yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet along Benton Avenue.

Staff is supportive of this request, noting that the properties on the south side of Benton are zoned B4 and have no minimum front yard setback.

And the adjacent property to the west was granted a variance to allow a patio to be constructed to the property line along Benton, resulting in no front yard setback.

Staff finds the 10-foot setback to be appropriate given the developments proximity to the downtown, the enhanced streetscape proposed along Benton, and compatibility with surrounding land use is fronting Benton.

In summary, we find the proposal consistent with the downtown 2030 plan.

Tonight we ask that you conduct the public hearing and staff will remain available for any questions.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Good evening.

Russ Whitaker, Rosenov and Whitaker.

Um, on behalf of MIHOMES as the contract purchaser of the uh property that uh that Sarah just uh outlined, um, which is generally located at the northwest corner of Maine and Benton in downtown Naperville.

Um just a little background on MI Homes.

Um in my Chicago region is located uh in Naperville.

They're actually housed at City Gate Center.

Um, so local builder um with a national footprint.

Um in 2024, MI closed on sale of more than 500 homes in the Chicago region.

Um, this commission has seen a little bit of MI Homes over the last year or two.

Um I Homes is under construction today on Northwoods of Naperville, uh, which is a town home development off of Warrenville Road on the city's far north side.

Um, in my homes is under contract and recently obtained approvals on Everly Trace, um, which is like the the farthest opposite end of town off of 111th Street.

Um the the subject property um it sits along the northern boundary of downtown Naperville as Sarah sort of mentioned.

Um Benton Avenue runs east-west, is clearly established as a residential block.

Uh the site was uh the site we're working on is 0.8 acres.

It was formally improved with two single family homes and a church building.

Uh those structures were demolished by the owner of the property earlier this year in order to position the property for redevelopment.

The only remaining structure on the north side of Benton between Maine and Webster is the three-story flat roof structure at the corner of Benton and Webster.

Um you see that structure in the the top right hand right hand image here.

Um, and Sarah talked a little bit about uh uh variances that have been proved for that structure.

Uh the building was originally constructed by Ashton as a mixed-use building with commercial office uses on the first floor and residential units on the on the second and third floor.

It was never finished pre-recession, post-recession.

Um, it was ultimately converted to uh a single family home.

It's a 50 by 50 structure, um, so it's a substantial 7500 square foot home.

I had the opportunity to visit the owner and walk through the home.

It's really cool, uh, really cool property, and being able to sit on his porch was uh was a pretty um it's an exceptional spot.

Um Benton Terrace sits along the south side of Benton Avenue.

Benton Terrace is a large condo building constructed in 2004.

It is certainly a dominant present on presence on the block.

I think it's well known as one of the few condo buildings in downtown Naperville.

The middle image is a picture of the Benton Terrace condos.

This is along Benton in Maine as well.

So this is a vacant property.

You see through the property and you see the back of Main Street Promenade, which is the image we see here.

So you've got Main Street Promenade, the original iteration, which is where Hugo's is located.

The building proposed for Main Street Promenade 3 was a five-story structure, first floor commercial, residential units above, rising to a height of 66 feet tall if you're measuring to the top of the parapet wall.

The property we were working on, you see it outlined in black here is zone TU.

Sarah mentioned that.

Under the code, the TU district is intended to serve as a mixed transitional area between low density neighborhoods and other more intensive uses, such as an arterial roadway or business district.

Properties in this district are intended to be developed with low intensity office service and residential uses that are designed in a manner compatible with the adjacent residential subdivisions.

This is the comp plan.

And when you if you dive into the comp plan, it begins to get a little confusing because the comp plan has a TU designation, but the TU designation in the comp plan is different than the TU designation from the zoning district.

So bear with me.

As Sarah mentioned, in the North Downtown District, height is permitted up to 57 feet per code.

We're limited to 40 feet.

However, with the with the comp plan and the dictates in the downtown plan, there was suggestion that additional height would be permitted in this district up to 50 feet.

If we look at some other sections of the downtown plan, we've got a couple of call-outs here specifically with respect to the vision for the North Downtown Special Planning Area and the multifamily residential area.

If we're looking at that top right-hand section for the north downtown special planning area, use is permitted within the downtown core and secondary commercial areas.

So B5 district would be the appropriate zoning district when we're talking about secondary commercial areas.

I would call out the town homes and multifamily are a permitted use in that district.

As Sarah mentioned, we are compliant with that metric.

Specifically, you see reference to between Benton and Franklin.

So that's that North Downtown special area part of our property.

So that's even a little bit higher than the 57 feet permitted under code.

When you're looking at the multifamily residential area, so the remainder of the block, you can see height permitted at 40 to 50 feet or I shouldn't say permitted because again, it's a master plan, it's a guiding document.

So the suggestion here is that height is permissible up to that area.

So this is the site plan.

This is a rendered version of the site plan that you have in your pot in your packet.

Just walking through the plan real quickly.

I think we start at this spot when we're developing a site plan because Main is of Main Street, right?

Everything through downtown sort of loads off of Main Street, and so this is an important corner.

So when we were looking at this building one, we really started in focus that that building one needs to be oriented to Main Street to pay due respect to the fact that it is Main Street.

From there, I think we sort of jumped to building three.

It's got more depth behind that building, so there's a little more flexibility in what we can do on that portion of the property.

Um we work off of a side property line, and we recognize that that wants to uh that that building wants to front onto Main Street.

Um so I think the layout of building three becomes uh frankly relatively simple.

Um I would note that you have a that what kind of colored pink on this plan is the drive aisle.

Um the reason you have some different different shading on the drive aisles is that we're specing pervious pavers in different sections.

Um, it helps us manage impervious area, but two, it's also going to help improve the overall uh aesthetic character of the development.

So just kind of running through that plan.

If I'm looking up at the screen, um the drive aisle for building three is here.

You will enter these units all from the rear.

Um so you see uh small uh parking spaces behind the units.

Each unit has a two-car garage.

I would call out that the area here that is that is colored is designated parking.

So there's six parking spaces located in that area.

Um just to the north of that designated parking area, um, you see another uh another strip that runs the length of the parking and then comes down the east side of that drive aisle.

That is a uh there's a sidewalk, so it's a four foot sidewalk.

It would be internally owned and operated by the homeowners association, but we're looking for a way to connect those parking spaces and make it apparent that those spaces are not just for that building three, uh, but are shared spaces to be used by all of the residents of this development.

Um so then we we've kind of laid out building one and building three, and I think we sort of backed into the location of uh of building two.

Um so when we do three-story rearloaded product or rear loaded product, whatever the the height, um, typically we're looking at garages and those garages faces face each other, and that's what you see in this plan.

It seemed like a relatively simple layout, and with the with the sidewalk that was running internally, we were still able to have the front of that building too, which I guess to clarify is here.

Um we're still able to have the front of that building too come out to a sidewalk that was internal.

We've seen this done, similar things done on other developments in the area.

Um I will say that as we were having conversations in the community with residents, with staff and others, um, we looked at whether there was another opportunity here, and and we in fact have made a change to the plan and would like to present a slight modification at the plan commission this evening.

Um so this is an updated site plan.

You see that frankly, very little has changed.

Building one orientation remains the same.

Building three orientation uh and location remains the same, but building two has shifted.

Uh so instead of building two being oriented internally to the drive aisle, um, you see that we've pulled building two to orient directly to Main Street.

If we're thinking about the experience, I'm sorry, I said Main Street Benton.

Um if we're thinking about the experience on Benton Avenue, we think this just makes more sense.

Um we were able to manage some modifications to the interior layout of the building to make this work.

I would call out that now, of course, we don't have garages off the back of the building, uh but we have garages coming off of the side.

So the the west unit is going to load off of this west drive aisle, uh, the east unit is going to load off of this east drive aisle here.

Um so we think that this is a in the grand scheme of things, a very minor change in in the scope of what's coming before plan commission.

Um, but we also thought it was an important update that kind of is going to help improve uh the feel and the character of the development once it's built and as it relates to the rest of downtown.

So we hope we we can talk about that more, but we hope you view that positively.

Um I wanted to call out the landscape plan for a minute.

Um, there's a lot going on here in the landscape plan, so I won't I won't take a lot of time, but um a couple of points of emphasis.

I started talking about the importance of Main Street and that corner.

Um I think you can see that we've we've paid a lot of attention to the the front yard, the side yard of this building one.

All of that landscaping is heavily upgraded, um, very difficult to read on this scale, but we're actually proposing uh a pier in this location, so there'll be some monumentation, a little bit uh of an identification sign at that location, but you can see that rather than having your traditional grass yard, we've got a lot of plantings that fill out that front yard, and it will be sort of a lush environment coming off of Main Street as we transition to residential away from the the core of downtown.

I think the other thing I wanted to point out is the streetscape.

Sarah talked a little bit about the streetscape, but when you see it here, I think it pops a little bit better.

You can begin to pick up the planter boxes.

So the planter boxes are here along along Benton.

This is us picking up the city standard detail from downtown, incorporating it into the development.

This certainly isn't downtown as a as a commercial streetscape in downtown.

So we've taken some liberty and made some modifications out of the standard detail that you would see down the rest of Main Street.

For example, if you look at the corner here, there is a seat wall here that is built in integrated as part of the part of the planter bed.

That's consistent with the detail you would see downtown.

In that location, you also see that there's uh there's some paver segments and there's a broader, uh a wider pavement section overall.

Um when you get just past that planter bed, um so when you get to this location, um, you can see we transitioned to uh to SOD and we transitioned to a more traditional five-foot sidewalk.

And so this took a couple iterations working through a staff, but I think we got to a sweet spot where it's residential in nature with the five-foot sidewalks, but also evokes the the character of downtown with the planner boxes and is sort of that improved um streetscape that is going to uh signal that you're in or leaving leaving downtown, and just a couple images of the planner boxes similar to what we would be doing in this location.

So elevations, uh so we have this is an elevation of the uh the two-unit build, the two-unit buildings, the two buildings one and two are the two-unit buildings.

Um I would call out and we'll see it better on the on the next image.

Um this reads as though it's a four-story structure.

Um, it's it's going to live like a three-story structure off of the front.

So if you're driving down Benton, um, you're not going to see four stories, you're going to see three stories.

Um, we'll see that on a rendering in a minute.

If you look at the uh if you look at the side elevation here, um you can see that there is a substantial setback off of the front of the building to this the roof structure that's off the back of the building.

Um technically speaking, if this were considered a mansard roof, um none of that would be included in the calculation of height.

Um we didn't want to argue over whether this was considered a mansard roof when we can when we looked at the permissible height under the comp plan, it seemed like the 46 feet was well within what was allowed.

Um, and so it seemed like, hey, let's just measure to the top of the roof structure.

And that's what you see us doing here is the building height is at 45 feet eight inches is being measured to the top of that roof structure.

Whereas if you think about a typical residential home, um, we often measure to the midpoint of the roof structure in a mansard roof.

We actually measure to the to the deck line of a mansard roof.

On a flat roof, we measure to the to the deck of the flat roof.

Um, so some some nuance to how we got to all of these points.

Um, but I think the uh the overall elevation here is something that's going to be very attractive.

Um I would call out that the front entries are recessed off of the front plane of the building.

Um, you can see that there are a lot of windows across the front facade.

Um, the front two stories are masonry material.

Um the the top stories are uh the top stories and along the side are going to be hardy material.

So under Naperville Code, this is a hundred percent masonry building.

I would point out it it doesn't jump off the page at you, but um, off of the rear of the building, um, I would call out that there are some recesses in the building.

So this is going to be an outdoor living space, outdoor living space.

You can sort of see that outdoor living space on this side elevation too.

Um so, in terms of in terms of outdoor space for these units, um, you will have that second story recessed living space off the back of a kitchen.

Um, you will also have on the rooftop of the structure off the front of the building.

Um, we were conscious to put the the livable rooftop space off Benton so that we were not looking at residences behind us on Franklin.

Um, and I I think the rooftop deck in this location is just unobtrusive.

It's not uh it's not us, it's not residents here peeping down on any of their neighbors.

Um so I I sort of mentioned the how I think the building will live or how it will look in in real life.

This is uh this is a rendering, so you can see we're sort of down at street level now, um, and you begin to see um how the that that mansard type element that larger roof structure, the fourth floor, um, is pushed substantially back off of the front elevation.

Um so when you're walking Benton Avenue, um, you're very much going to see what is a a traditional three-story building, um, and I think it will fit very well within the character uh of the environment around it.

With that, um happy to take any questions you might have.

Thank you.

I would like to hear from any of the members of the public present tonight to speak on the case.

Secretary Wright, please call the first speaker.

Chris Carlson.

I am Chris Carlson.

I live at 130 West Franklin, so I live directly behind the proposed uh development.

Um the Calvary Church properties share a city block with nine single family, all detached residents, including mine, one residence per lot.

These nine numbers, uh, nine neighbors are all welcoming of an appropriate development.

However, we feel like this is very high density, very tall, has a massive lot coverage, and all nine neighbors are opposed to the project as it stands.

Personally, I think the project has very much negative effect on me.

I've lived in my house for 23 years, and I think it will be shocking.

Uh I'll be looking at a 46-foot-high wall, basically, that is 150 feet long.

That's seven units times 20 feet per unit.

I come up with about 150.

All a sheer flat plane.

As a matter of fact, the wall at Statesville Prison is only 33 foot high.

Uh, this will look very similar to me.

I think the building might be a better option would be if it was split in half.

It didn't have seven continuous units.

Uh, the part about Statesville, I looked that up, I didn't reside there.

Um, I believe the size and scope of the building will have a negative impact on my ability to market and sell my property in the future.

I will find it more difficult to sell my home, and the value of our homes will be negatively affected.

Uh we understand through the Napal Rule Municipal Code that maximum height permitted in TU is 35 feet tall.

All neighbors meet the standard.

We encourage the planning commission to require any proposed development on these four lots to conform to the height and size and density set out in the city's transitional use.

This is code, this is not a plan or a goal or a suggestion.

I don't know why 35 feet tall is not enough.

We urge the planning and zoning commission to take into account the adjacent neighbors' concerns.

We encourage PZC and the city council to continue to consider longtime neighbors and neighborhood character appropriately shaping this development.

Also, by the way, this is a 100-year-old neighborhood.

My house is from 1923.

I know my neighbor Brian's is older.

Uh even in the light of the goals and vague of the vague and highly suggestive 2030 plan, zoning codes still in place, and current residents rely on the codes to protect existing neighborhoods and investments from excessive noise, light, water runoff, very densely designed and lengthy buildings that are out of character in our opinion with the existing neighborhood.

Finally, I would say all these new PUS throughout Naperville should not all be about height, size, and density, and how much a builder can profit.

I think the beauty and charm are fast leaving this city, and it may be time to protect the future of Naperville.

We encourage the planning commission to not accept this uh five plus requested variances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Secretary.

Thank you.

Secretary Wright, do we have another speaker?

Richard Lowry.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I uh I own the property on the corner.

This is loud.

I own the property on the corner, which they put up on the screen.

Um I didn't build it.

I didn't I didn't construct the shell.

I bought it and then converted it.

Um when I bought it, all I heard of in terms of zoning was that it was T U, and that's why that was built.

Um my building is 50 foot depth, and it's 35 foot roof height.

Um with the peripheral wall, it's 38 or something like that.

With the power pit wall around them.

Um so as I understood at the time, that was the maximum that could be built in the TU area.

Um, and it conforms to it.

And it's a giant building.

So I actually I like the idea of town homes along that street.

I think it makes sense.

It puts the building that's mine is, it sort of puts it in context and has some continuity.

I don't like this design.

And the main reason I don't like these designs is because of all the exceptions to the to the planning rules.

They're looking for a relief on the setback.

My building is 16 foot setback from the road, they're looking for 10 feet.

In doing that, they will be building that, putting that building out six feet in front of my building, closer to the street.

Seems unnecessary.

The code is 15 feet.

If you do the calculation for the density, then there should be, if they're going to put two duplexes there, then I think it comes to five point uh 5.5 townhomes.

So let's say six, they're putting in seven.

I think six would be better.

At the same time, they're calling for a 46-foot height, which in actuality, when it actually comes close to my building, it's probably going to be 48 feet, because the grade and the elevation of the floor will be set at the higher elevation to the east.

Um the building at the east will be set at ground level, and there's a slope in the road.

So it's instead of 46 feet, it's going to be 48 feet.

Um by comparison, so it's probably about eight feet taller than the building I have.

Um, and then at the same time, the building is 60 feet deep.

So it's five, six out five feet in front, and it puts six out five feet behind, and it sticks another six, seven, eight feet on top.

It puts my building completely in shade from the perspective of light and all the rest of it.

And all of that is a variance, but not the 60-foot.

All I know is I've done a study of all the town homes in downtown, the three locations for the Charleston homes, the DJK, that beautiful complex, um, the railroad houses, that new new houses going up in Loomis, um, that the house is on the cul de sac at Fremont, um, and the houses that went up behind the YMCA on Century Park.

Every one of those town homes, the developments have a 50-foot depth.

Every one of those seems to be able to build successful high-class homes with a 50-foot depth.

This is looking for 60-foot depth.

I would imagine it was the 50-foot is developed because of light considerations.

Um, that if you only got windows at one end and monitor at the other end, um, but but I don't I don't know that for sure.

But as they say, the calculation on density would suggest that it should be six homes, not suggest, would accept six homes, um, setbacks um 15 feet, um, height restriction 35 feet.

Um, the only thing I went through the 42-page document, petition document, and the only reason I can see, I think I'm correct, there's a lot of repetition in it, is that these adjustments, the it says that they're including um reductions to excuse me, although the project includes certain deviations from base zoning requirements, base zoning requirements, including reductions to the minimum lot area, that's the calculation of how many units can be on there, setbacks, setbacks from the road, setbacks on the side, increase in maximum yard coverage, which means they're looking for an increase in the amount of hard standings, roads, the building, et cetera, and uh and an increase in height, and this is what it says.

These adjustments are critical to achieving a walkable urban scale design with downtown planning principles.

Why do any of those things affect a walkable urban scale design?

They have no relevance.

It's all a choice.

It's all a choice.

Now, when we go back to this uh, the whole thing seems to be this TU district versus um the 2030 plan.

If I look on the 2030 plan, those two blocks now, um heading going up to Washington Square, they can go up to, I've got it all here somewhere, but they go up to 47 feet, 50 feet all the way through there.

Um so, you know, this is basically a residential road, which Chris lives on.

And the way I see it is they actually say in their documents this is precedence setting, this building.

And if you do the calculations, if you've got a hundred foot lot by a hundred and thirty-five foot lot behind on his street, by these calculations with these variances, you can slap up a four four unit uh town home.

And this could be put right next to a residential home, 12 foot 12 foot away from a residential home, because that would require this to 10 foot setbacks on the side.

With that, you could also you could live with a 25 foot setback or 15 foot set um setback on the front, but you can put four town homes in.

So I think the city has to decide what is this 2030 plan.

It's a vision, and this can go up to and it's all over the place.

It can go to 50 feet, 47 feet, 60 feet.

It's just all through this residential area.

Well, the people that live there need to have some certainty of what they're going to be living next to.

And these calculations make it really hard to know because these are all variances, and if they apply to this strip, then they should fly apply to everything in that area.

Or it's just a choice that you guys are making and they are making.

Because it's not a rule.

But we understand the rule is this is a TU area.

I have a massive building on the corner.

I'm not responsible for it.

I'd like to think I beautified it.

Um good to see some continuity of uh of design, but these are big exceptions.

And the fact that it and there's many comments in here saying that this does not affect anything in the immediate area.

Well, it affects me.

Um I'm the only one living there, but it is fight as a variance to go five feet closer to the sidewalk.

And uh, and for me, the five foot extending beyond our back, I so I've got a back deck back there, and I'm going to be looking at a 40 47 foot wall going straight up 12 feet from my property.

I don't know why these aren't just continuous lines.

Obviously, my building complied with what was going on in the past 15 years.

Every other build, every other development like this is generally doing that.

I don't know whether it's by rule or what, but they're 50 foot deep.

I see, I feel like my property is the anchor for the block.

There should be 50 foot depth property.

There should be six town homes instead of seven.

I also agree with Chris when he said um actually taking um just looking at the example of DJ K, which I think is a wonderful builder, um, wherever he's in a situation where he's putting in seven town homes, he builds four with a gap in between, and three.

Never have it, don't think he'd ever take seven, seven like that.

At six, you could have three units, you could have a growth, you could have air gap and grass, which breaks up the look of the place, um, so it doesn't look like the prison wall.

Um, and uh, and it would meet the calculations that's in presently in the zoning.

If the zoning doesn't count anymore, then do away with it and let everybody there know what they're dealing with, that they're gonna have 57-foot tower blocks anywhere they like.

You can knock down two houses or something and stick one up in the middle, because if it's good for here, it's good for the rest of it.

Unless you come up with an idea or so taking a block at a time and developing a block at a time.

But this different, these different rules in this 2030 plan are just ridiculous.

How does anybody live with that?

I've got, yeah, yeah.

I have lots of other comments around just one thing about the trees, because we talked about the the big just so the neighbors know.

I'm not necessarily against this.

I just want everybody to know the the three big giant trees that presently on that street in this plan to make way for the for the planter boxes, which I think is a nice addition, they are getting cut down.

And they're going to be replaced with little, you know, eight-foot saplings and between 30 years will look great.

But I'm not necessarily against it.

It puts my building in shade.

Everybody's got different agendas.

Um, but it's just to be clear, those will be cut down.

On the planters, I just wonder, does the city take those over?

Or does the because they the city take those over, or is that going to be the neighborhood?

Because all those planters around town, they get changed out with plantings every three three times a year or something for the seasons, and they get watered and they get and they get heavily fertilized on a weekly basis.

And I just wondering if the city's taking that over as part of the overall concept.

One other thing, um, water.

All I know is that behind my building, in the ground, I've got like 300 feet, linear feet, of five-foot diameter, big plastic pipe underneath my backyard, that is a storm mortar reservoir.

And apparently the city required the builders to the developer to put that in place when my building was built.

Just one building in that's a big reservoir that's there.

It doesn't seem to be the city's concern, and it's on the underground for me, so as long as it doesn't collapse, you know, I'm fine.

But it's um, but that was a concern I understood because that historically had been that is the low point, the corner of Webster and Benton, and that historically that used to flood.

And so it was a requirement to put it in.

When I asked when I was developing the building and converting the building, I asked if I could fill that in.

And I was told no, it was necessary.

So all I want to know is that I just want to make sure that for this development where they're requesting increased hard standings in driveways and parking area, maneuvering area and building itself.

In this, has will the city please do proper calculation to make sure that this is not going to change the flooding situation down there.

Because the first thing to be backed up or the water will come up in the least least resistance, and I'll have uh I'll have um a lot of water coming into my house.

Um so I just think the calculation needs to be done and carefully review why the requirement was there beforehand.

If there isn't a requirement for that anymore, there's a new sewer line or something, I'll put a request to fill mine in.

Um I understand they're going to put um permeable, that's the right word, yes, permeable pavers.

Um that is uh that that certainly helps, but I just want to make sure the calculation is it doesn't seem like very much.

Seems to be the parking for six cars and the main driveway coming in, not the main um maneuvering area into the lake.

One other thing on the parking that on the on one of the uh on one of the planning documents was given out.

I think the requirement for parking in that area is 25 car, 25 vehicles.

And this development is offering 42, which looks fantastic, and it is fantastic because you know, with this number of units there, the parking is a real problem in that area.

There's a real shortage.

If we put uh if we put 11 units or even 10 units in that area, we want to make sure that there's there's parking for guests because these people will have guests and they will have family and they will have possibly need for more than two cars.

So the 42 is developed by having four parking spaces per townhouse, and that is two parking spaces inside and two parking spaces in front of their garage.

Um so there's a 15-foot strip identified on some of the drawings as that parking area.

Um 15 feet might be okay.

Um a Honda Pilot is 17 feet long, so and you gotta you've got to not hit your garage door.

But anyway, it's all a little bit tight back there.

But another reason why I don't like the 60-foot depth of building.

Um completely shaded out.

It is wider at the back, it is wider at the front, it's eight foot higher, it doesn't need to be that.

It's not done all around town.

I don't see it.

So it's clarity of what this TU is versus the 2030 plan.

That needs to be dealt with so all of us neighbors know what uh we're going to be living next to.

Um the other hand, I like the idea of townhouses.

It's an absolutely fantastic street.

I love Naperville.

Um not trying to try to cause any problems.

I just want nice, well-built houses that um don't put me in shade all over the place and look good from the street and look good to our neighbors in front.

That's why I brought up the thing about the trees.

Um I do have other things.

I know I'm meant to keep this short, and I know I haven't done that, but the only reason given, and I will just say again, you know, the only reason for this for every one of these changes in design is to achieve a walkable urban scale design consistent with downtown planning principles.

There's not a good reason for anything.

And everybody else in town, all the other builders in town can uh can build an economic um building for that.

I have lots of drawings and things and everything that I'd be happy to put in the document and send to you guys tomorrow.

Um I think I've covered everything, and I certainly don't want to steal anybody else's time.

Um this might do it.

Thank you very much indeed for your time.

Thank you.

Secretary Wright.

Next speaker.

Alice Goodman.

Good evening.

Um hi, my name is Alice Goodman, and I live at 27 North Main Street, which is on the corner of Franklin in Maine.

Ironically, until this project started, I had no idea about this 2030 plan, which apparently my house is intrical in part of it, since it needs to be, I guess, demolished in order for this to happen, which is not gonna happen.

So I don't know what that happens to the 2030 plan.

But um that's another topic for another time.

I just want to make sure we're not relying on the 2030 plan as somehow a guiding principle, because I don't know that it's gonna happen as it's written.

Um I'm here tonight because I want to request that the commission hold the uh proposed development of the existing zoning requirements similar to my neighbors, uh especially for the building site, and particularly the lot coverage um or parking.

Um Richard talked about this a little bit.

I just want to elaborate for two minutes.

Um the plan as I have reviewed it, doesn't allow for enough parking.

I saw the rendition, particularly for the two um, I don't know what they're called, duplexes condo buildings, buildings one and two.

I see the garage spaces, but there's no extra parking.

Like if someone were to use their garage for storage, as often happens, and we all do, where will they park?

And a half of a space per unit for guest parking is simply not adequate for the number of units that are being um requested to be built on this area.

We have friends that live in the Charleston Row homes.

We go over there, you know, there's a dozen 15 people, plenty of parking behind there, two behind every unit along the wall.

That's not what I see here.

So I don't think it can't happen.

I just think the way it is currently drawn, there will not be parking available for the needs of these residents and their guests.

And I foresee Benton Avenue could easily face the same problems we have on Franklin, which is parked cars are parked both legally and illegally along the road, and it reduces traffic to one lane of traffic, causing backups on a daily basis.

And Benton is so much more heavily traveled than Franklin.

I don't think that's something we want to see in downtown.

Um, I'd like to add that um these 11 homes where there are only four lots don't seem to fit the character or scale of our downtown residential area.

I understand this is uh what we're calling TU type thing, but I think that the whole transition is to keeping in the vibe of residential next to commercial and not necessarily turn it commercial.

So I do think it's important to keep it with that same look and feel that we have.

And so I would request that you protect the look and livability and traffic flow of our community and the neighborhood that we all love so very much by ensuring this project meets all the zoning requirements that are already in place.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Secretary Wright, next speaker.

Simon Bowler.

Simon Bowler.

I'm present, but I didn't request this being.

Okay.

Next speaker.

Hamilton Cry.

Uh I'm present too, but I want to talk about the other item.

Sorry.

I'm sorry, third.

You said third item.

Okay.

Uh that would be that'd be it.

All right.

Commissioners.

Commissioner Namas.

I have a quick question for staff.

Did you take into account the site line along Benton and what that would look like with that final residence on Benton?

So if it's further, are we saying that the the petitioner would move this towards the street, whereas that last one is further back?

Is that correct?

Uh the single family home at the far west end.

Um, yes, so these units would be closer to the street than the front facing wall of that building, but we would note that there is a large patio with um seat walls and a pergola that extends all the way up to the sidewalk.

So um effectively creating a street wall that's at the zero set back.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have a question from Mr.

Whitaker.

Okay.

Um can you please um address um Ms.

Allison field um field business on concern regarding parking for um for for guests if if if the uh residents use the um garage to store materials, where else will they be able to uh park the cars?

Yeah, so I mean I feel like there's a little bit of mixed messages, right?

It's comply with code, but we're complying with parking code, but now that's not enough.

So parking code to be clear is 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit.

That is the that is the parking requirement for a townhome in Naperville, um, whether it's us, DJK, or Charleston, um, and that is that is a standard that has been well established and is used throughout downtown.

Um, that is what we are meeting.

So all of the all of the townhomes in this development um have two um garage spaces, um, and then there are an additional um uh six parking spaces behind building three, and so we are um code compliant with parking.

If someone was to if someone was going to fill their garage with stuff, um it it's it would be a problem.

In in certain instances, um I can say, you know, I I would cite um uh the development on Mill and Avenida, uh Mill and Bauer, um no, not Mill and Bauer, Mill and across from Nike Park.

Um so there's question about that exact same issue, and there was concern that these were apartments, and so residents are gonna rent a garage, but then they're just gonna put their stuff in it, it's gonna become a storage unit.

On that development, we said, hey, listen, we'll um as part of a lease, we'll write in a provision that the garages can't be used as storage.

I think we would have absolutely no concern um writing a provision into the declaration here stating that uh garages are to be used for parking cars and and storage in a garage cannot interfere um with the ability to park cars.

Um we can also put regulations on the on the parking, uh the guest parking, and I think we would be happy to do that as well.

So um we have MI is a national footprint developer, they've constructed five, five, they constructed 500 homes um in the Chicago market last year.

Um we've got experience putting these documents together and have absolutely zero concern about the ability to um regulate parking at the site.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Castanoli.

A question came up about replacing the landscaping up front.

Will that be the city's responsibility for the flower change or the developer?

So we are responsible for the installation, but it is a all of that improvement will be located in the right-of-way.

So the city owns the right-of-way.

Um we uh just like if this were a if this were a Pulti development and we were building street trees and sidewalks, um, at the end of the development, we will hand over a bill of sale to the city of Naperville, and that bill of sale will transfer ownership of those improvements that we've built on city property, and the city will then be responsible for ownership and maintenance of those.

So all of those planter boxes, um, the trees located in the right of way, all of those improvements will ultimately be owned and maintained by Napoleon.

Thank you.

I um I'm sorry, if I could expand on that.

We did do a little bit more digging, and um staff actually discovered today that Benton Maine is outside of the area for the downtown SA SSA for maintenance.

Um so we are thinking that it will likely be the property's HOA that's responsible.

But we will have further discussions with the applicant on that.

Um, and I apologize that that came as a surprise.

That was news to me tonight.

I miss that.

All right, Commissioner McDaniel.

Um so I'll be honest, I uh started out uh open-minded, excited.

Uh uh I I still think it's a very good plan.

Uh however, I I have concerns uh about the uh density.

Um Mr.

Lowry, you brought up some very good points.

I've been by your uh your home a number of times.

Um I do think that Naperville needs to continue to strive to find a very good balance between continued uh development, um a continued evolution of of what our downtown and transitional areas look like.

Um that's what helps to maintain you know that great character and charm that everyone you know loves about downtown Naperville.

Um I I would really like to see uh uh some updates uh to the proposed development that would uh maybe fit a little bit better with the surrounding area.

Um I think it's a great, you know, a great plan.

I I would love to see it happen.

I'm excited for it, it needs to happen.

Uh I would just like to see some changes made.

So I'm gonna not be supporting this.

So if I if I could touch in on the density, so um we you know we we talk about density all of the time when we're when we're doing residential development, right?

In in a lot of suburban communities, density comes across like a four-letter word.

Um nobody no existing residents want to see density next to their home because density means you know it you you can insert the adjectives depending on the community or depending on the type of development, whether it's ownership, rental, or whatever.

Um, but when we when we're doing uh a site like this, I I think we need to understand the context, right?

Um we just studied this site for the 2030 plan.

Um, and one of the things we came away with is we said there needs to be more density, there needs to be more residential rooftops downtown.

And so we set up a number of areas downtown where there was going to be additional density.

Is it going to look like the single family residential neighborhood it was constructed as a hundred years ago?

No, it's not.

There's going to be a transition time, but we've had transition times in neighborhoods all over town.

I used to live in East Highlands, and next to me was a was a very small house, and then there was a big house, and there was lots of transition happening, right?

The neighborhood has transitioned, and at this point in time it's very much a cohesive neighborhood.

And I I would challenge you to find a more beautiful neighborhood in town than the East Highlands.

Um, but where I think what's truly unique here is that this is downtown.

There's really two spots in downtown, or I'm sorry, there's two spots in Naperville that are most deserving of density.

It's this spot and it's Fifth Avenue.

You could argue the Route 59 train station, but I'm gonna say that's as much Aurora as it is Naperville.

So I would focus on this spot in downtown because if we're talking about density, um the reason that we the reason density is good is because it's putting people near services and goods.

We want more density downtown because we want rooftops downtown that are supporting commercial establishments.

We want people to not have to drive downtown and find parking.

We want people to live downtown so that the so that Sullivan's in the George, where I saw uh Richard at on Thursday, is part of their neighborhood.

And it's only when we establish the kind of density that I think our our downtown will continue to grow.

Listen, downtown is great today.

Downtown has problems though.

We've seen all kinds of problems with retail vacancy, we have problems with office vacancy.

You know, I know the the guy at the corner of uh uh of Jefferson in Washington opened a new restaurant, and he's like, where are all of the people?

Like, why is there nobody here during lunch?

And the answer is you look at you look at our downtown and you compare it to Wheaton, or you compare it to Downers Grove, or you compare it to Elmhurst, those are other great downtowns, right?

What is Naperville missing that all of those downtowns have that support their establishments on a regular basis?

It's rooftops.

Naperville does not have rooftops.

Benton and Maine is an example.

I'm sorry, Benton Maine.

Benton Terrace is an example of rooftops being successfully integrated.

The the only the the most density you have out of Benton Terrace in and around downtown is probably I think it's five South Washington.

It's the DiPalo building, it's like six stories next to the next to the funeral home, right?

Um there are not a lot of opportunities for us to find density in downtown where we're bringing people and we're putting them into the fabric of downtown.

This is one of them.

YMCA is one of them.

I can tell you the density here is going to be a small fraction of what you'll probably see in the future at YMCA.

I will tell you the density that we're proposing here is a small fraction of the density that could otherwise happen here because keep in mind this property was multifamily and it was north downtown district.

As a multifamily district, what it what's what that's telling me in the comp plan is that it can look not like what we're proposing, but it can look like what's across the street, right?

With all of the comments, I I think there's we we heard from residents who live on Benton and we heard from residents who live on Franklin.

We didn't hear from anybody who lives in Benton Terrace, but look at the middle picture.

That's Benton Terrace.

That's what we look across the street at.

We don't look across the street at small single family homes.

Are there small single family homes to the rear?

Yes, there are.

But at the same point in time, if we look at if we look at the plan, what is the plan for the small single family homes?

Webster Street is a dividing line, and the intent is that there's more density built out on this block on the block behind us and on the block behind that, and that the there is additional development um extending east.

When we when we see development of the block that is east of us, does anybody believe that that is going to be small scale development?

It's not.

It's going to look more like this.

Right?

This is the plan that is approved for across the street from the development we're working on.

So we're we we have neighbors complaining about the height that we're proposing at 46 feet.

They cite DJK's heritage place, which I worked on.

I didn't work on the Charleston Road projects, but those certainly came through our office.

What do all of those have in common?

The height that we're proposing on our site.

None of them are proximate to a project like this.

So this is the 2020.

This is the 2020 approved elevation for MSP3.

This is what we're going to be staring at across the street from Benton and Maine.

So now I I guess I would ask you if this is the context that we're developing adjacent to, how do we then begin to feel about the density that's proposed here?

I think we've got to not only look at what the existing context is, but we've got to look at the plan and we've got to understand the future context because this might not have been developed since 2020 when the plans were approved, but it certainly could tomorrow.

And I think the fact that we have a big hole on half of a block in downtown Naperville is something that I hear people complain about all the time.

When's that going to go?

It's ugly.

We need to do something here.

This is Naperville.

Why hasn't it happened already?

Right?

In Lyell, we see Family Square boarded up for a long time, and people aren't surprised.

But here in Naperville, when we see a vacant property sit like that for a long time, everybody begins to ask questions.

I think that you're going to see something happen.

I would note that the property that we're looking at here, which is the vacant block adjacent to us, is owned by kite.

Kite owns Main Street Promenade, also owns Main Street Promenade 2, and they own the property that is proposed and approved for Main Street Promenade 3.

So I think there was probably a unfair characterization of what the neighborhood is that we're developing in because everybody wanted to look behind us at the existing single family homes.

Nobody wanted to look in front of us and consider what is the context for how we're transitioning outside of downtown.

And when you look at this building, I think you have to.

I think you're compelled to say that what we're proposing here, stepping down to 46 feet is an appropriate transition out of downtown.

So that was uh kind of a lot thrown at you in response to the density comment, but I I think the the density here, uh 11 units that we're proposing.

Um, if you look at the comp plan in the 15 dwelling units per acre recommended in the comp plan, um that would that would shake out to 12 total units allowable on this property.

So, as Sarah mentioned, we're under that uh under that comp plan designation.

Is it over the density um that is permitted in the TU district?

It is, but at the same point in time, we had we had density variances at Charleston.

Um I don't recall specifically if we had it at Heritage Place, but I'll tell you for sure we had other variances at Heritage Place.

I'll tell you for sure that the neighbor next to us, um Richard, he came up and was very upset about the variances we have, but Richard has variances on his property as well.

Um he came before the commission in 2013, he obtained a setback variance.

As Sarah mentioned, he has a zero foot setback on his property, and he built a very beautiful porch.

It's a great living space.

Um I I think it was a good decision.

It was a hideously ugly building that he bought.

Those are his words and my words.

Um, and he did a great job in proving it.

Um, so I I think the I think the takeaway though is Richard did a good job with his variance.

The staff has said we're proposing variances, and we've done a good job with our variances.

I think now it comes to the commission to not just say, hey, what's behind us, what's in front of us, what is the context of how we grow downtown, and are these variances appropriate?

I think they are, and staff thinks they are as well.

Thank you.

Um I have a couple questions.

I don't know if they're for you or staff, so we'll see.

Um the setback, just to stick with that.

Does anybody know what the setback is at Benton Terrace condos?

Like from your from the photo here.

I mean, that's pretty close to the sidewalk's not that huge.

Do we know what the setback is on that?

I don't off the top of my head.

It's I it's not 15 feet.

Okay, is it it's it's also a different zoning district, so that's B3 or B4 zoning districts.

So the setbacks would be different for Benton Terrace.

Benton Terrace was also approved as part of a plea PUD for Main Street Promenade, so there were all kinds of variances associated with Benton Terrace and Main Street Promenade.

Well, not just the very, but just looking at the numbers themselves.

Like, is um Benton Terrace going to be very similar to the what it would look like for these Benton and Main.

I I may have it in my file.

I'll let me take a look.

Curious, just for comparative sake.

Um, stormwater was mentioned.

Is that an issue with these?

Are you gonna have big um pipes underneath as well?

So there are no big pipes, so this is so under the DuPage County stormwater ordinance, we talk about net new impervious area, and so that's really the starting point on res on any sort of redevelopment.

Um, under the DuPage County ordinance, you are exempt from new detention requirements if the impervious area being added is less than 25,000 square feet net new impervious area.

So we have managed this site to be less than 25,000 square feet net new impervious area, so we're exempt from detention.

That being said, I I would show you this exhibit.

So there is it is true that there is um stormwater issues in the area.

This line here that I'm I'm the cursor is sitting over is a 36-inch storm uh storm line.

Um that storm line runs through the the two backyards that the three backyards, four your backyards north of us, kind of cutting diagonally, enters and cuts through our property.

Um we're picking up that storm main.

We've we've identified it, we found the easements for it.

Um we've got the right to enter on to adjacent properties to change that.

Part of the reason that we moved the set, we we had originally proposed a 15 foot setback for all these buildings.

The reason we ultimately went to a 10 foot setback is because of this storm line.

So as it you can see the line, the line that that storm line runs on today, right?

From from north to south.

Um, we're proposing to replace that storm line.

So again, it's a 36-inch clay tile.

Um, there's routes that have gone through it, that things are not free-flowing through it.

So we're gonna replace it.

It's gonna be a new 36-inch pipe routed through our property.

Um, because of the size of it, though, it's going to take a sizable structure in this location here.

So you see that circle that we have on the plan.

Um, that's a structure which is going to allow us to change the orientation of that storm line.

Um, and in doing that, we the the sizing of that structure caused us to shift the building, otherwise, we would have to put that structure on the property to the north of us.

And we thought that even though there is an easement on the property north of us, we felt like that was an unfair intrusion into their property.

So, what we did is we shifted the buildings in an effort to make an accommodation to that property north of us and put all of that infrastructure on our property.

Okay, but bottom line, you're not worried about flooding.

No.

Okay.

And I do like the permeable painter papers, that's good.

And the city is and the city has reviewed preliminary engineering plan.

So the city engineer has confirmed that stormwater is appropriate.

Okay, excellent.

Um Benton, is there parking on Benton right now?

Yes.

On both sides?

Yes.

Okay.

It that might be something that city council might need to take up to decide if it does turn out to be a problem, but that's obviously not a problem for this commission.

We we had originally uh we had originally proposed that we might inset the parking, so build parking spaces sort of along the street frontage in front of the homes.

Um that wasn't something this the city was in favor of.

Um, they wanted the the planner boxes instead, but it sounds like we're gonna have another conversation about the planner boxes tomorrow.

Okay.

Um you mentioned an HOA, so there is an HOA that and they handle the snow removal and all that kind of stuff.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um and then I didn't see the floor pans, but in our conversations, I never mentioned my favorite word visitability.

Um is that even possible in this?

So I a couple of things on that.

So one, I I would say this is a with this being uh a three-story livable space.

The the first floor space is it it's a flex space, right?

But it's not a primary living space in most iterations.

Um, and so in the past, we haven't focused on visitability because we don't think it really has a lot of oomph here.

Um, as a result, uh as a result of a couple of factors associated with uh the layout of this, we've actually decided to put basements in these.

Um the basements sort of are an additional factor that's driving us to not do visitability.

So we had a specific conversation about it because it was three-story, we were kind of leaning against it.

When we ended up adding basements to the plan, we sort of had scrapped it at that point in time because it becomes much more difficult if you've got the um basements also um that would be something that the 10-foot setback would also influence.

Okay, I would just be remiss if I didn't ask that.

Um, I mean, overall, I mean, I was it was super sad when I saw that the church was torn down.

I thought it was a cool old building, it would have been a neat brew pub or single family home or something.

So I was sad about that.

Um, I mean, this block, I appreciate that it does sound super confusing.

You've got the the TU and you've got this downtown special planning area, and it sounds like they've both got different numbers.

I mean, either way, though, it this is transitional.

Um, I mean, that that's what this area is meant to be between the downtown and to the north.

Um, I empathize with all the the neighbors, and I thank you all for for coming to speak.

Um, learned a lot about that block.

So thank you very much about that.

I mean, I see that you you're basically an island in a sea of buildings that have you know all of these different different heights, and they're all they're all pretty tall.

I mean, you've got the ATT building to the north, which is like 45 feet, and you've got all of these other ones which are in the 40s and 50s and 60s.

I mean, you're you're an island there in these buildings of commensurate heights to to what is being proposed here.

Um, as far as density goes, I think it is inevitable that there is going to be density there because it is a downtown area, no matter what, no matter what it's called.

I mean, that on the original drawings, it was just really awkward having this the front door right there next to the garbage cans for pickup.

That just just didn't really sit well with me.

So I think this is going to be much better.

I look forward to seeing it um on better drawings.

Um so overall, I mean there there are things that you know maybe I would change a little bit, but but overall I'm in support.

So thank you.

All right, Commissioner Adam Baker.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just so that I understand, like for the building number um one and two, the additional parking is going to be behind building number three.

Is that right?

That is correct.

Okay, is there going to be any auditional parking other than that?

Uh no, it is just the six spaces behind building three.

Um, I that and that was when I was going through it, that was kind of one of the reasons that we had this sidewalk, um, the the sidewalk providing the interconnection was to be able to sort of convey that those spaces were absolutely visitor spaces.

It will, and I would say keep in mind that there will be a homeowners, uh homeowners declaration for all of these buildings.

So everyone will come in knowing that those six spaces are guest spaces.

Um, and I we haven't really talked about it, but we could, for example, do overnight regulations.

Um, when we do a larger scale townhome community, that's pretty common.

We might say, hey, these guest spaces cannot be used for overnight parking.

That might be the type of thing we do here, or it might be like guest pass for overnight parking.

So there's different ways that we can regulate the use of those spaces to make sure that they're not sort of um they don't become attached to that building three.

Understand.

Um I shared the same concern as we know um my friend uh commissioner um McDaniel shared here um that I also was really excited when I saw it, but I shared with uh Commissioner Longenbo as well that he's going to be downtown, there's gonna be density issues.

Um thank you for the well-prepared presentation today.

I mean, it gives a good understanding, uh, even though there are challenges, but I think like you know, there is no you you have tried the best you can.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hansel.

Yeah.

Um I have a pretty much same concern, like of course, the unusually high number of variances and deviations you have asked for the zoning requirement, and number two, the proximity of these units to the neighboring homes.

Um that's also concerning.

Is there any possibility to explore alternative layout or reducing the number of units or any other design adjustment with this project?

I mean the project looks good, but again, the density, the unusually high number of variances and deviations you've asked.

Uh, is it any possibility to come up with a different design?

Yeah, I I mean we've we looked at a couple of different layouts.

Um I I mean I'm almost a little bit embarrassed that we didn't come out with the layout fronting Benton before we submitted, but um I I think that we're we're we're very much locked in on the overall unit count here.

Um I I think we were we we very much would have liked to shake out the additional unit um that would have been suggested per the comp plan.

So we we the goal was to have this at 12 units, um, not to have it at uh at the 11 units we're at.

So I I think from from our perspective, um, we wouldn't be looking to lose density.

Um we have expressed willingness to to fluctuate on the setback.

Um, you know, I think one of the unique things is um and and I I talked to Richard about this at some length.

This this building three, um, it could really be located, it could be located at 10 feet, it could be located at 15 feet.

It really becomes just a matter of preference, right?

Um, it's not uncommon if we go into a development that we might even stagger the location of homes along a street frontage.

Sometimes we do it strategically.

So we might have one at 15 feet, one at 10 feet, bounce back to 15 feet two, and then bounce back to 10 feet, and it just creates a little bit of a different feel, a different street wall.

And given the given the age of the neighborhood adjacent, you see that up and down.

So I mean, there's a there's a house almost right across the street here that that is it's a single family home, but it it's effectively a zero lot line home.

I don't remember if it's on um on Webster or if it's on Eagle, but uh it's it's right here, it's right across the street, actually, it's right across the street from um uh from Benton Terrace.

So I think it's just just right across the street here.

So I I would say that if we were looking at a plan change, it would be the location of building three, and we would have the ability to shift building three back five feet.

If we shift building back building three back five feet, it then comes into closer alignment with Richard's house, which you see here.

Um I would say that the the difficulty is it it was I don't I think it was easy to do that when we had this alignment.

When we have this alignment, maybe it becomes uh a little bit more difficult, but given that you've got the the separation of the drive aisle between building two and building three.

Um if it was the commission's prerogative, and I know I've talked to staff about this, I don't think there were super strong opinions about the location of building three.

Um it is imperative that we have a 10-foot setback for building two.

Um, and and again, the justification for that is all about stormwater infrastructure.

Um, but when we when we requested the variance for building three, it was about aligning those, aligning the units in this development along the street frontage.

I think it would not be a problem if building three move back five feet.

So I I think that's probably the best answer I could give to that question.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Wright?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, fortunately, most of my questions have been asked already.

Um, but uh since you just made that comment, one of my uh statements was going to be about the the setbacks, and would you be able to adjust the setbacks, which you just said, building three, you you might be able to do that.

What what does that do for your does that does that extend it to the back?

Are you saying that it it will actually take depth off of the building?

No, the the building would remain the same.

So it will be a it will be a 60-foot building.

I know that was talked about a lot, but there is no regulation of building depth in Naperville.

Um so we are I mean, there would not be a problem um with setbacks in terms of pushing it back.

So the back of that building is 60 feet from the rear property line.

Um so I believe the applicable setbacks like 25 feet.

Um so we've got substantial distance between the back of the building and the rear property line that we could shift.

I mean, effectively everything would shift five feet.

Um and that would that that would not be a fundamental change.

Um the rear lot, the rear yard coverage would change a little bit, um, but I I think that given that it's it's just surface structure, um, it's not a none of it would be structure up in the air that would be intrusive to the neighbors.

Um I I think the effect of shifting it five shifting building three, five feet back is is very minimal.

Okay.

Um could you go back to the original layout that you yeah, that one, thank you.

Um I think it was mentioned that the rear setback, um, I think uh Mr.

Lowry spoke about this, that the rear of the building sets five feet beyond his building.

I don't see that in this drawing.

Could you speak to that?

Yeah, it's so this is this is a drawing that's overlaid on an aerial.

So the the aerial is always gonna have a little bit of a tilt to it.

So it's just it's it's just the the drawing playing tricks on your eyes.

So he is absolutely right.

Our building is 60 feet and would would extend back past the back of his building.

I I would call out though that when we're talking about his building, we're we're generally talking about the the white structure here, right?

Um so this here is the patio he was referencing.

So that was that was an addition, an addition that was constructed onto the 50 by 50 structure.

Um so this is all additional space.

I mean, technically speaking, we're including our garage depth in our 60-foot building.

Richard is not including his garage in his measurement of a 50-foot building.

If we were to include his garage, um, Richard is more like a 70-foot building.

Um technical detail, right?

Um, I I don't think it's necessarily important for our case, but yes, we are our the back of our building will extend about five feet beyond the back of his vertical building line, but he has garage that will extend well past the the back plane of our building.

Okay, that that makes sense.

Okay.

Um so with that said, again, I'm you know uh the the property, Richard's property.

First of all, my favorite home in all of Naperville, by the way.

Um, I don't think setting that building back makes any sense uh from a standpoint that you would be more intrusive to the rear of his property, which I'm assuming is where you do most of your entertaining and and and things of that nature.

So I'm not sure that that setback makes sense.

But you know, I do want to comment um again what uh uh Commissioner Longenball said, you know, again, this is a T U transition.

I understand um what how it affects the neighborhood.

Uh Mr.

Whitaker is absolutely correct that this is a very unique corner in the downtown area.

Um I travel this road every day and kind of try to envision what this what this road would look like.

Um the kite property across the street.

We know at some point is going to be developed with a tall structure.

Um to me, I you know, again, I just think that this design makes a lot of sense for the street and and what the future of this street is going to look like.

You know, could it be better with height?

Perhaps.

I'm not concerned about the density.

I think density is important for all the reasons that Mr.

Whitaker stated.

Um I think it's important to the downtown community.

I think it's important to the dead zones that happen in on that corner of uh Benton and Maine.

So I'm looking forward to that portion of it.

Um if if there's no concessions that can be made on the height or the setbacks, um, you know, I think you did a phenomenal job with the presentation.

Turning a building two made a lot of sense.

You may think it's small, but it visually, I think it it helps us uh get there a little bit more.

Um I wish there was some way we could work with the neighbors a little bit more and get rid of one of these variances, but I understand the need for them.

Um so uh at this point I will be supporting the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner quick uh clarification.

You are right about the density, it's inevitable.

Um there will be more.

Uh we have to.

That's just the nature of you know evolution and and the you know growth of our downtown area.

Uh probably what I guess what I should have said is consistency.

Consistency of design standards, consistency for current residents, future residents, and developers, uh, especially in that transitional area.

That's that's my point.

So thank you.

Any other commissioners?

Yes, Commissioner Mann.

I have one additional question.

Um, because you've brought up the height again, and again, I I agree with your assessment on density.

That's not a concern, or the setback.

Um, but what what is driving the height?

Is that the design choice?

You mentioned the 2030 plan.

Is it that prom what is it mean street promenade three, which also could you confirm that Main Street Promenade 3 is a different zone, correct?

Based on your map, right?

So they would have different rules.

Um so if you could just provide a little bit more additional on what's driving the height.

Yeah, I I think the I mean ultimately the design is dry is one of the things that's driving the height, right?

So I I I kind of started talking about Naperville has some technicalities in their code.

Um if if we were characterizing this as a as a mansard roof, um, and I think the side slopes on the roof don't allow it to qualify as a mansard roof, but we could go back and we could change the design.

Um, we would be able to shrink the technical measurement of the height.

Um we you know, we slapped a 45-8 building height on this um and called it okay.

And I think frankly, because we saw that there was 66 feet approved across the street, we knew that Benton Terrace was like 44, 45 feet.

Um we knew that we're we're transitioning out.

We knew that the downtown 30 plan said, hey, this could be 50 feet portion of the property, portion of the property is zoned for 57 feet, right?

So that that's not even a variance on that portion of the property.

Um that's where the two duplexes are.

Um and so I I think we looked at a confluence of circumstances, and we we didn't think that the height was going to be an overarching concern.

You know, I I mean, I would say this is this is the DJK project at Heritage Place that was referenced.

Um the the structure is really no different than this, right?

Um it has a different type of roof slope to it, but that's really the functional difference.

So this is a functionally four-story rear-loaded townhome.

Um, what we're proposing here is functionally a four-story rear-loaded town home.

It has a it has a slightly different shape to it because of the the roof struck roof structure, but it is it's functionally the same product.

It's a little bit different size, it's going to live a little bit differently, um, but the product itself is the same.

We've seen it approved at Heritage Place.

Um, we've seen it approved at Chicago Commons.

So Chicago Commons is the Lake West development that was done.

Um, Chicago Avenue extending um east from downtown, so that's two duplexes, and I think a six-unit building.

So I think that was um 10 or 11 units as well.

Um, same type of format.

Um, we've seen it done at Charleston Place.

Um the the row homes on um on Aurora Avenue, um, and and they've they've I think they've done three or four of the Charleston Place um town home projects.

Um so I I think what we're doing here um is a format, it's a building style, it's the it's a similar height to what has been developed at three or four or five locations in the immediate proximate area, and given the downtown 30 directions, we really thought that and I I guess based on conversations with staff as well, we really thought that this was uh this was not going to be a heavy lift with respect to the height variance because it had been done um in so many other locations because of the adjacent height, uh the adjacent height across the street, um, and because of the the guidance from the from the downtown 30 plan.

So I think it's really uh a confluence of three or four different circumstances, understanding the context of the property that led us to think that that that height would be appropriate here.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioners?

So I I do feel all the commissioners have echoed all of the way I'm feeling.

I will say when I first looked at this project, I I struggled, right?

I grew up in Naperville.

I remember the little homes all down there, and some of them are still there, and they're your homes, and I have massive compassion for that.

I also look at the ATT building.

I look at the building at Washington and Benton.

I look at all of what's around it, and this is transitional use.

And I guess where I got myself to be okay with this development was I really looked at it as almost a buffer to the houses that are on Franklin and around it because you know, the next revision of this, I don't know what if it's something worse.

You know, what if it's something different?

And the building that Kite has proposed to build is a lot a lot more grander with a business flair to it, and I don't want to look at that either in a residential home.

I would rather see something like this with heavy landscaping with updated stormwater.

Um, so ultimately I'm able to be in favor of this, but with a lot of compassion for what's around it.

But what's around it, I think this will actually kind of it creates that buffer, it creates, I don't know, it kind of protects you guys a little bit more.

Um, so I am in favor.

I do have a question though, regarding garbage and snow removal.

So I know there's an HOA.

Is there a dumpster?

Will there be individual cans?

I saw originally I see this, and I saw where the cans were.

I'm assuming that's where cans would go, which I am thrilled to see you move that front door for unit two.

But is that where all the cans are stored on a weekly basis, or that's when garbage pickup?

That would just be for garbage pickup.

And so we we have coordinated and we we expect that this would be a private refuse surface.

Um, so the HOA would have to contract with a separate garbage provider, unlike single family homes in Naperville.

Um, and we have run this by a garbage provider, and there is no issue with individual um individual canisters, um, and they would be rolled out on the evening before pickup to these locations.

Um, and frankly, there would be provisions in the HOA declaration that they're that the the canisters are ultimately stored in the garage.

All right, same for snow, is that correct?

I saw the blue areas, that's where they're going to be dumping snow.

It is.

We would be pushing snow to those areas.

Um, you know, it there is at the end of the day, um, you know, we we don't get a a ton of snow here.

We see this question come up on a lot of developments at one on one development we went and we we actually found in Boulder, Colorado, they have a metric to define how much snow storage you have and you you need.

Um, and you'd be surprised at how little of a footprint, even Boulder, Colorado even requires for snow storage.

But um, we think that um there's some areas here where we can push snow.

Um, at the end of the day, the provision that we always include in the HOA declaration is that um every snow contract that the HOA would let is going to have a provision that says if the snow cannot be stored safely on site in defined locations, it has to be trucked out.

Um so you know, having an office downtown Naperville, I see it happen, you know, every year.

It snows, the snow gets pushed together downtown Naperville, it gets loaded into trucks and it gets taken out.

Um, if there is too much snow to accommodate in the snow storage areas here, that is what would happen.

I appreciate that just because I was thinking of the other folks on the other side, making sure that that's not hitting there.

And then as far as emergency vehicles, they would be coming in on the Benton and Main side.

They don't need to enter in through the driveway.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Right.

All right, those are the only questions I have.

Uh would you like to make any closing remarks?

I I don't think so.

I I guess I would just say we appreciate everybody's time.

Um, this is something we've been working on for a while.

Um, you know, I again, I think we we see this as being very consistent with the framework of other townhome developments that have been completed very successfully, and we're even cited here tonight as great examples of development.

Um, we're we're functionally um no taller than them.

We functionally have the the same shape and size of units um as them.

Um so we think this this will be a grand addition setting um setting a new north side of downtown, and I think we're gonna kind of see that um that becomes a new street wall, and it's going to sort of transition, it's going to create a defining limit for where the downtown commercial district ends and where sort of a more dense but downtown perimeter district of residential homes that support downtown will begin.

I think that's something that's critically important for the long-term success of downtown.

It's something that's worked into the 2030 plan.

It's something that's strategic with Naperville trying to bring density downtown in specific locations, and I think we can achieve it in a very rational fashion here in a format that isn't a large scale multifamily structure that frankly would be much more intrusive to remaining residents on Franklin.

So with that, I really appreciate the time this evening and we'll respectfully request your recommendation.

Aye.

Sorry.

May I do well?

No, I'm I'm sorry, we're closed for public comments.

Sorry to all in favor say I.

All right.

Yes.

Your mic wasn't on.

Just as up, your mic wasn't on.

Oh, my mic wasn't on.

So Commissioner Damas, please read the motion.

Of course.

I would like to make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as presented by the petitioner and recommend approval of DEV-0109-2025, a conditional use for a PUD in the city's TU zoning district and approval of a preliminary slash final PUD plat with deviations to reduce the required minimum lot size, reduce the required rear yard setback, reduce the required front yard setback, increase the maximum permitted building height, and to allow more than 25% of required rear yard to be occupied for the subject property, Benton and Maine.

Can I have a second second?

Second.

Thank you.

Secretary Wright, conduct roll call.

I'm sorry.

Agree, agree with the motion.

Thank you.

Bonzel?

I do not.

Cast Ignoli.

I do not.

Longenball?

I agree with the motion.

McDaniel, I agree with the motion.

Namas.

I agree with the motion.

Ricellia, I agree with the motion.

Right, I agree with the motion and Robins.

I agree with the motion.

Seven two.

All right.

Thank you.

The next case on tonight's agenda is the reconvening of the public hearing for DEV-0057-2025.

1960 Lucid Lane CARES Critical Data Centers.

First, staff will provide presentation with updates regarding the case, followed by the presentation from the petitioner.

After the petitioner's presentation, we'll continue hearings from the members of the public who would like to speak on the case.

For the sake of time, if your comments are similar to those already shared, you may simply state that you agree with the comments shared by the previous speakers.

The PCZ, PCC bylaws state that these meetings conclude at 11 p.m.

Unless the meeting is extended by a vote of the commission.

Now Sarah Kapinski from staff will present the case.

Thank you.

Again, this is Sarah Kapinski with the city's planning services team.

The petitioner's presentation and public testimony on the CARIS Critical Project began on September 3rd.

Many members of the public provided comments on the proposal thus far, and staff identified recommended conditions of approval for the planning and zoning commission's consideration.

On September 3rd, it was also recommended that the public hearing be continued to tonight to allow time for a third-party consultant to review the petitioner's sound study.

Prior to resuming public testimony tonight, Steph wants to highlight key changes that have been made to the plan since the September 3rd meeting.

Most significantly, the petitioner has modified the proposed site plan by eliminating the phase two data center building and associated utility substation.

This modification also resulted in the elimination of a variance request to permit an increase in the height of the security fence for the phase two private electrical substation.

The petitioner is now requesting approval of a conditional use for one data center building and variances to reduce the required number of parking spaces on site and to increase the height of the equipment yard screen wall.

The building elevations were revised to include additional accent materials and to raise the parapet walls to the full height of the rooftop mechanical units.

And in terms of site lighting, the petitioner has provided documentation confirming that all exterior light fixtures proposed on the subject property are dark sky compliant.

Staff is supportive of these modifications and finds these changes to be consistent with our previously recommended conditions.

Additionally, following the September 3rd meeting, the city hired Hampton Lenzini and Renwick Inc.

to review the petitioners' noise impact assessment.

Verify the data center campus will operate in compliance with city regulations identified in section 6-14-4 of the municipal code.

And determine if any additional improvements are recommended to mitigate potential noise impacts.

Based on the petitioner's plans and supporting application materials, it was determined that the petitioner's noise impact assessment complies with the requirements of the Naperville Municipal Code.

While not required by city ordinance, as a best practice in data center development, the third party reviewer recommended that the petitioner compare the proposed noise levels to the Illinois Pollution Control Board standards to ensure that none of the nine octave bands are exceeded as these regulations provide stricter guidance than the city's ordinance.

If any accedences to any of the nine octave bands are identified, additional mitigation measures should be proposed.

Staff agrees with this recommendation and has added it to an updated list of recommended conditions.

Staff is supportive of the petitioner's requests as revised, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Tonight we recommend the public hearing be reconvened.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Will the petitioner please approach the podium?

Oh my god.

Good evening.

Uh Russ Whitaker, Rosanov, and Whitaker here this evening on behalf of uh Keras Critical.

All right, a little bit of a long-form presentation here, going through a lot of uh a lot of update details.

So um so please bear bear with me for a little bit.

Um so we were originally here and opened the open the hearing before the plan commission on September 3rd.

Uh at that time we presented plans for a data center comprising two phases, um, totaling 76 megawatts of IT load.

Uh, this is the rendered plan that we presented in September.

Um, after the presentation, uh, a quick overview.

We presented expert witnesses covering data center development and operations, civil engineering issues, traffic, landscaping, lighting, architectural considerations, and finally fiscal and economic impacts.

At the time of the September September 3rd meeting, uh, the city's planning staff was supportive of the phase one development of the data center campus, but suggested approvals of the phase two campus be deferred.

Uh at that time, we were also awaiting uh results from the city's electric utility on a load study that was uh that was being performed.

Uh, given the collective feedback received from the city's planning team and the electric utility, um, feedback received from the plan commission, feedback received from residents during the September meeting.

Um, we've substantially revised plans that are now before the commission this evening.

Um, for purposes of the presentation this evening, I'm gonna walk through the revised plans and then discuss some additional commitments that KARIS is making with respect to the development of the all the development and ultimate operation of the data center.

So this is an updated rendering of the plan before the commission this evening.

Um, notably the delineation of the property remains the same.

CARES is under contract to acquire the approximately 40-acre parcel uh that is depicted in color on this image.

I would note that the exception to Keras' acquisition is the Indian Hill substation, um which is located on the uh on the left side of the screen.

It looks like a building, but it's actually the uh the city substation.

Uh the substation is owned by the city of Naperville and will ultimately be ultimately be the source of electric supply uh for the data center.

Uh the fundamental change to the plan is of course the elimination of the phase two building, uh, the second substation, and then the associated improvements around the substation and the phase two building.

Uh we're now requesting approval of a singular data center building.

Uh, the singular building as depicted on the site plan may still be constructed in sub phases.

Um, we went through that in some detail at the last meeting, but phase one A represents 24 megawatts of IT load.

Phase one B represents an additional 12 megawatts of IT load in some total.

The IT load of the data center building is 36 megawatts, or exactly half of what was presented to the commission last month.

Access to the uh data center building is unchanged.

Uh, passenger cars will use loosened lane and enter the site through the southern access point.

Trucks will use the northern access point for deliveries.

A loop, a looped driveway provides access around the entire perimeter of the data center building.

Parking is located to the south and east of the building.

We have proposed a parking variance to reduce the required parking to 60 spaces.

However, as you can see, we have plenty of remaining space with the development of this 40 acre parcel.

In the you know, I lost my point.

As we discussed at the last meeting, the the plan is to build the parking that we need, which we believe is 60 spaces, but we are also land banking additional parking.

So I would identify the area here.

So this black outline here represents area where we could build an additional 114 parking spaces if demand for that parking space is was deemed necessary, or if if there was demand for those parking spaces in coordination with staff, we would have the approvals in place and the ability to go execute on the construction of those parking spaces.

So this is really a strategy that minimizes the footprint of development in an ecological way, in a thoughtful way, in a cost efficient way, but also prepares to make sure that we're not creating some sort of negative impact on our surrounding neighbors.

Um in this location to the north.

No stormwater improvement is required.

Under DuPage County, we look at net new impervious area when we're working through a redevelopment project.

We just talked about that on the last one.

Um in the last one, we were we were not over 25,000 square feet net new impervious.

In this one, we are actually reducing impervious area by eight acres.

That's sort of an astonishing amount.

But when you consider the context of what was here historically, um, by way of reminder, it was a 600,000 square foot office building, and there were two count them two parking garages on on the side, flanking the office building to supply sufficient parking to accommodate all of the all of the occupants of that office building.

So it is a substantial reduction in impervious area or set another way.

There will be significantly additional green space with the site as it's as it's currently set up.

We are preserving the large native stormwater basin that exists today.

The basin covers approximately six areas of land.

It's generally located at the hard corner and extends along the Naperville Road frontage.

On the plan, you see the the modeled color or the modeled area represents the native basin in that area.

We talked about landscape last time.

Um with the location of the phase one building, um, we are avoiding impact to the frontage, um, approximately 300 feet in terms of setback off of the adjacent right-of-way to the building improvements associated with the data center campus.

I pulled off some of the coloring on this image so you could see what was underlying where you see the red line and that 290 foot, 95 foot measurement.

Um, you can see that there is uh a substantial woodland there that that woodland hasn't been there all that long, but it is a woodland today.

It's something that we don't need to disturb and we are not disturbing with the proposed development plan.

To the right of the uh the 200 the 295 foot marker, um you can see the native basin, um, which again is not being uh disturbed and will be preserved open space along the entire frontage of the property at Warrenville Road and Naperville Road.

Um I I wanted to specifically call out in terms of landscape improvements.

I'm not gonna go through all of the all of the additional landscape that we're going to add to the campus, but when we were here last time, we talked about the eight-foot berm that was being installed along Weatherby Lane.

Um it would have made logical sense to pull that berm out since that's not an area where we're doing work or where we're building a building.

Um, however, in consideration of the simple fact that this property is zoned ORI, it will remain zoned ORI, and the adjacent residential subdivision is in fact a residential subdivision adjacent to industrial.

We thought it made sense to go ahead and in consideration of the adjacent neighbors, install that eight-foot berm as part of our as part of our development of the data center campus, plant the trees that have always been proposed as part of that eight-foot berm and begin to create a natural separation between the adjacent residential and what has been a 60-year historic use of this property for industrial light industrial use.

By way of perspective, if these shades were open here and we were looking out across the river, Nichols Library is about 330 feet away, so three times that distance.

So the the nearest home in Indian Hill, call out the measurement down here, is 418 feet.

It's 457 feet if you measure it here.

Um away from the data center building.

What I would call out is that these homes in Indian Hill are adjacent to the Shervon building.

Here the building is effectively just off of our image.

So the distance between our data center to that home in Indian Hill Woods, the existing industrial building at Shervon in Indian Hill Woods is equidistant.

I would also point out that Shervan was developed and the adjacent home in Indian Hill Woods was substantially improved after the development of the Shervon building.

We heard a lot of suggestion that people would not build homes next to industrial development.

Suggest that that that proposition is incorrect that people will buy and invest in homes that are even adjacent to industrial development.

When I'm done with my presentation, we also have Lance Romella here this evening, and he's going to share some details about impact to property values.

At the end of the day, setbacks are substantial.

I think that's really borne out when you begin to look at the noise impact assessment.

You'll see that the separation between uses when you when you see the separation between uses the noise, the noise from the data center really becomes minimized and becomes a background consideration that would not impair the use of residential buildings.

If you're looking closely to figure out what we've changed, it's very minimal.

In response to staff comments the last time the flat roof, right?

We measure height to the flat roof structure.

So here are our parapets extends to 60 feet.

The flat roof structure slopes to about 40, 44, 45 feet.

And so we have a distance of about 14, 15, 16 feet between the flat roof structure and the top of the parapet wall.

That parapet wall has been raised a couple of feet for the express purpose of screening the rooftop units.

So in the last iteration of these plans, you would have seen the rooftop units on the back of the buildings peaking just over the top of the parapet wall.

When you look at these elevations, if you look at the top of each building elevation, you can actually see that there's some dotted lines, these boxes, those boxes represent the rooftop mechanical units that are now fully screened with the raising of the parapet wall.

So just a second image here, I wanted to be able to depict that those rooftop units will be fully screened by the parapet wall from the front, the rear, the side elevations, and then this the larger image on the right is just if there were questions, a blow up showing that that rooftop mechanical unit being shaded in.

I wanted to be able to depict that those rooftop units will be fully screened by the parapet wall from the front, the rear, the side elevations, and then this the larger image on the right is just if there were questions, a blow-up showing that that rooftop mechanical unit being shaded in.

Okay, so that that takes us through plan changes.

Now I think the the next conversation is about the stewardship pledge.

And so what I've got in front of you is a stewardship pledge.

Um and I actually have copies in my in the box of materials I have.

I'm gonna take a second.

I'd like to hand out copies of the stewardship pledge.

Um, we're gonna go through it in some detail, but I want the plan commission to be able to see that as we're working through details.

I also have copies I'll give to staff, so give me one second.

Okay, so while Sarah is having that uh or handing out those materials, um the the intent here is a document that represents a series of pledges that Claire that KARIS is voluntary voluntarily incorporating as a component of our conditional use application.

Uh we propose that the stewardship pledge gets incorporated into the ordinance approval and operates as a governing document, no different than a site plan, building elevations, or a landscape plan.

Um so our intent is that this becomes a guiding document for the development and operation of the campus.

Uh, the stewardship pledge, as you can kind of see it in front of you, is divided into five categories responsible operations, renewably powered, local investment, environmentally conscious design and operations, and oversight and accountability.

Um rather than trying to work through the detail in this format, um, we've broken the presentation up into those various sections.

So I want to start right at the top with responsible operations, um, which is the first category.

There are really two pledges that comprise this category.

Um, the first is ownership and operations.

Um frankly, I think this is really intended to respond to questions from Commissioner Robbins at the end of the last hearing.

Um, she asked questions about Kerris's KARIS's ultimate plans with respect to the operation of the facility.

Um so here we're delineating uh that KARIS's role in the ownership and development of the data center and its intent to partner with an experienced operator for day-to-day management of the data center.

KARIS is committed to incorporating the stewardship pledge into its operating agreement to ensure that the provisions of the pledge are clearly understood and followed on an ongoing basis.

Um the second uh commitment relates to a prohibition on crypto mining.

Um, while we haven't heard this as a specific concern locally, um, these crypto mining operations are resource intensive and have drawn objections in some other data center proposals.

Um we thought it was low-hanging fruit that we could go ahead and incorporate here.

Uh so crypto mining is inconsistent with our focus on developing a co-location data center that serves as a critical part of the infrastructure serving the Naperville community.

Um, so we were we were happy to include this uh this prohibition in the uh in the use and operation of the the data center.

Uh the next ones uh is a big one.

Um so we heard a lot of noise around the source of power for the data center.

Um the point of emphasis has been on the IMEA contract and the fake fact that Naperville primarily drive derives power from a downstate coal plant.

As we look to make legal commitments as part of this process, we as KARIS must be mindful of the current state of the law.

Uh, to be clear, um, under the current state of the law, KARIS must buy 100% of its electricity through the city of Naperville.

The city of Naperville is under contract with IMEA through 2035.

As a result, there are limits to what we can reasonably commit to today.

Um, what we can, understanding these realities and the legal framework we're operating within, KARIS is committing to enrolling in the city's green energy certificate program to purchase renewable energy certificates or recs to offset 100% of its IT load.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, a rec represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt of electricity produced from renewable resources, such as wind or solar.

Recs are tracked under Illinois Shines rules.

In this case, KARIS is committed to purchasing and retiring RECs through the City of Naperville's Green Energy Certificate program, ensuring that there's not going to be secondary trading of the RECs, but ensuring that there's a responsible manner where the RECs are monitored, tracked and retired.

Recs are an essential component to the financing of develop financing and development of renewable energy projects across the country.

I have firsthand knowledge of this, having represented a Fortune 150 power supply company who owns coal-fired power plants across the state has been shutting those coal-fired power plants and has been and has been developing solar resources.

I've done multiple solar projects downstate Illinois.

At one point in time earlier this year, I had conversations about potentially having 13 new solar projects to work on this year.

I can represent to the commission that those conversations occurred in April.

It's now October.

I have zero.

So solar is solar is not easy.

If we are going to develop solar, if we are going to meet states goals for renewable energy resources, there's going to have to be investment, not just investment in the energy that is produced from solar, but in secondary revenue sources that support additional renewable development.

And that that mechanism is a wreck.

So I think the real takeaway here is we've heard criticism, and if you go on social media, you can find all kinds of craziness.

But the the common allegation now is that data centers are driving up the cost of power for regular residents.

And in some cases, there may be some some validity to that argument.

But we're approaching this development in a manner that we are, I think removing that possibility, and RECs is a critical component of how we're doing that.

So I guess in terms of specifics, I want to reiterate that the that the intent is that we would purchase RECs offsetting 100% of the leasable IT load.

So at build out that is 36 megawatts.

The RECs would be purchased through Naperville's Green Energy Certificate Program, and that's an important component.

Additionally, as part of, and it's not showing on this slide, but it's in the specific language of the stewardship agreement.

But we've made additional commitments that might not sound important, but they get to the heart of whether the rec is valuable and whether the wreck is fulfilling the purpose it was intended for.

So we are committing to buying wrecks attributable to solar and wind power.

We are committing to buying wrecks that were developed in the last three years, and we are committed to buying recs from Illinois or Midwest region projects that would feed into our grid.

And so I think that is a that is a substantial step, a step that no other business in Naperville has made to support investment in green infrastructure and to make sure that there is not just for Naperville, but for the state of Illinois, additional re additional energy resources that are coming online.

So local investment.

So we're kind of moving on to the to the next category here.

So the first component here is utility infrastructure improvements.

The city has confirmed, and I said this before, the city has confirmed that there's sufficient load available in the Indian Hill substation to power the data center.

There were a lot of residents who asked last time why do why do it here?

I think we addressed that in the presentation last time, but I want to say it again in response to this specific issue.

The Indian Hill substation is frankly located within the bounds of the property that we're purchasing.

That's a very unique situation.

That substation was at one point in time owned by the owner of the Nokia campus and ultimately transferred to the city of Naperville.

But it is a unique resource that positions this property to be developed as a data center.

There is available power supply at the Indian Hill substation to be able to develop a data center in this location in a very immediate term.

I've done data center developments in other in other communities in the region, and the the time to build was circa three to ten years as a result of infrastructure improvements that needed to be completed well in advance of a project coming out of the ground.

That is not the case here.

There's infrastructure available, frankly, on the property, and that infrastructure can be extended reasonably quickly to this building such that it would be under construction next year.

There are infrastructure improvements that will certainly be needed.

We will be working with the city's electric utility regarding improvements to the Indian Hill substation and regarding the extension of power onto to the uh to the actual data center building.

100% of the cost of those improvements will be borne by CARES.

That's a that's a super important point.

And I think it's really the second prong of why this is different in Naperville than if we were in a Commed territory.

Because if we were in a ComED territory and this applies to housing just like it applies to data centers, Comed, uh Comed has a different mechanism of uh of installing improvements.

Comed installs an improvement, they they design, they install the improvement, and they pay for the improvement.

They they recoop the cost of the improvement through ratepayers, but it's a blended rate.

They don't charge extra to the developer.

Um they blend the cost of those infrastructure improvements into their overall rate.

Naperville does just the opposite.

Um, and we're committing to pay for 100% of the infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to develop this campus.

As a result, unlike Comed territories, there will be no increase in cost to Naperville ratepayers as a result of this data center being constructed.

Um total investment.

Um Keras is going to make a minimum investment of 250 million dollars in the data center.

Um that that 250 million dollar investment, I kind of breeze right through that.

250 million dollars.

Um, but that 250 million dollars is is the the core and the shell of a building, right?

Um they're really functioning like a landlord.

Um, they're not building out the the IT racks or the the um uh the computer infrastructure in the building.

So note that while we're spending 250,000 or 250 million dollars on the core and shell of this building, um, tenants will spend hundreds of millions of dollars more um outfitting the interior of the building with their computer equipment.

Um, that is going to mean um uh an extraordinary number of union construction jobs during the initial construction phase.

It's going to mean a lot of IT work um during the original um lift up and uh an improvement phase from uh from tenants, and it's going to result in ongoing work um for IT professionals as the as the uh data center matures and and clients or tenants continue to operate their infrastructure.

Um the last component here is no local subsidy.

Um that is exactly how it sounds.

KARIS is not asking for dollar one from Naperville.

Um, Keras is also not asking for dollar one from DuPage County.

Uh I talked about it last time.

The the state of Illinois does have a data center incentive program.

Um CARES will be participating in the data center um incentive program through the state of Illinois, uh, but that does not take a dollar out of the pockets of Naperville or DuPage County.

Um the the sales tax that would be um that would be abated as part of that process is likely to apply to uh to many other locations.

Um I think it is important to note, I would be remiss not to say that a couple of years ago when the state of Illinois through the Pritzker administration established that data center incentive program.

Um they they did so um with the grand desire of making Illinois the data center capital of the Midwest.

Those aren't my words, those are the administration's words.

The goal was to make Illinois, not just the Chicago region, but Illinois as a whole, the data center capital of the Midwest.

We've seen extraordinary investment in data centers over the last few years.

Um it has in part been supported by the state's incentive program.

I think the state is proud of the incentive program, um, and they continue to incentivize data center development because as Governor Pritzker talked about it, it is absolutely critical infrastructure.

Uh the governor compared data centers to roads, bridges, um, and schools suggesting that it was so critical to our modern way of life that we should treat it as roads, bridges, and schools.

On that point, it's you know, I there's been a lot of preparation for this hearing.

There's been a lot of different iteration on this case.

I'm kind of going off script here a little bit, but um there's we we've I've listened to a variety of data center podcasts.

I'll go for a run around out to Heritage Place and listen to uh a data center podcast, which probably says something about me as a person, but um in listening to the data center podcast, they they'd sort of tuned into that same idea of data centers infrastructure.

Um, and when where the governor compared data centers to roads, bridges, and schools.

Um, in the podcast, they talked about it as water infrastructure.

And I thought that was interesting, and I've kind of like stewed on that a little bit, right?

And I think the reason that the water infrastructure is a better comparison because is because like we all see and we all understand why schools are good and beneficial to the community, right?

My kid goes to the school, my kid comes home from the school, hopefully smarter, um, and I can see the value that the school provides.

I drive to work on the roads, I see the value that the roads provide.

I drive over the railroad tracks on the bridge, I see the value the bridge provides.

What I don't see, I I use every day, but I don't see is the water pipes that bring service to my home.

They're buried under the ground, they're out of sight, they're out of mind.

They're at top of mind for me right now because there's water, water main replacement going on on Washington and Ogden.

I'm ready to kill somebody about it.

Uh but um it's it's been very painful.

Uh Commissioner Robbins, I know you're getting all the all the cut through traffic, I'm one of them, I'm sorry.

Um, but I but I think it's a when we begin to think about it, um, think about data centers like like water infrastructure, right?

No, it's not sexy when we develop water infrastructure.

Nobody likes it, nobody's particularly interested in it, but everybody's really thrilled that at the end of the day they can go home and they can take a shower, or they can turn the faucet on and they can cook some pasta, right?

That's super important.

You know what else people are interested in?

They're interested in going home, flipping open their phone and looking at social media.

Oh, what happened on Facebook today?

Or maybe they're interested in getting up or and in Naperville, one of the things that the I-88 corridor said is that Naperville has one of the highest incidences of work from home in the region.

25%, one out of four workers in the city of Naperville work from home.

It's that's an absolutely astonishing number.

It's a sort of a post-COVID development, it's something that is causing problems in the 88 corridor office market, but it's also something that speaks volumes of Naperville.

People are choosing to live here because there are resources here that they value and they want to they want to remain here, right?

But if we're going to sustain infrastructure for 25% of people that work from home, when those people turn on their computer in the morning, just like the water running to their shower in the morning, there better be infrastructure available that that teams meeting pops up, and I can talk to somebody across the country on Teams.

The only way that happens if there is if there's hard investments.

Hard investments in water infrastructure to turn on the faucet, hard investments in data center infrastructure to allow your teams meeting to run, to allow the the live stream of this meeting, um, to allow my kids to get on TikTok.

I try, but um I I don't know.

So I I that I I felt like that got a little preachy, but I I think it was I I think it really it really bears out as a good comparison that the data centers like water infrastructure.

So as we think about that, you don't have to, the city of Naperville pays for all of the water infrastructure.

We're not asking you to pay for this infrastructure, we're paying for 100% of the infrastructure that is going to serve the Naperville community.

Um I kind of I I kind of blew past this.

That was part of the the improvement.

This was supposed to be part of the improvement that Keras is making in the corridor, right?

250 million dollars.

The Naperville Development Partnership did an I-88 corridor study.

Um, this is part of the study.

I I found this to be one of the most breathtaking um parts of the study.

Um that the IED8 Corridor, the CSA, that's the combined service, that the combined area of the East Study Area and the West Study Area has fallen behind the average value of land in Naperville, despite being once valued commercial property.

Like when we think about this, like we we think about two parts of Naperville, District 203 and District 204.

Um, and and Commissioner Banzel, you and I have talked about this, that 204 needs commercial development because 204 relies on too many rooftops, and so the tax rate is higher, and they don't have the same base of support that 203 does.

And everybody very quickly points to the I-88 corridor as the base of support for District 203, and why district 203 does not have the same funding problems as 204.

But you look at the IEDA corridor study, and it is a warning.

The warning is that the property values in the corridor have fallen behind the average property values in Naperville.

That's an astonishing finding, right?

And so we need to.

It is it is critically important that we look for opportunities to encourage that investment in the corridor.

This is a grand opportunity.

We have 250 million dollars.

That is not that's not the construction of an office building.

There's not the construction of a multifamily apartment building.

That is a grand investment, the level of which does not come around often.

Um, and it is going to pay dividends long dividends long term for the city in terms of tax revenue.

I think the uh I think District 203 is scheduled to get like a million dollars a year.

Um, we could re we certainly revisit those numbers.

We have Aaron Gruin with us who completed the fiscal and economic impacts, but um this is in this is an opportunity, an opportunity to find investment in the corridor that has been lagging.

Um I get I get market updates about what is happening not only in the Naperville corridor, but in the East West Corridor, which includes Aurora, Downers Grove, Oakbrook.

In the last 10 years, the number of office buildings constructed?

One.

One office building in the last 10 years.

If we're going to have investment in the corridor, if we're going to sustain a commercial tax base in the corridor that is so critically important to District 203, this is it.

This is the opportunity.

There's not a commercial office building around the corner.

Getting back to sort of the environmental components of the project.

So this is I think the third or the fourth component of the of the stewardship pledge.

So the first item, and I've kind of got it flagged with the arrow here.

So as we walk through this, we'll come back to this slide and I'll flag which ones we're talking about.

But on battery backup, we do have there are questions from the residents.

We do absolutely have containerized battery systems that are that are a critical component of the data center.

In the renewable power space, batteries are critical component of supporting continuous electrical supply from solar and wind farms.

Batteries help to level the supply of power with immediate dispatchable electricity.

In the data center world, we're using the batteries for bridging power to again provide immediately dispatchable power.

This slide depicts the flow of electricity serving the data center.

You can see it, the primary source being utility power in through the transformer through the bow through the through the battery system, which is here, and to the servers.

Or as I said before, bridging power between the time that we would have a power outage from Naperville and the time that a backup generator would begin supplying sufficient power to facilitate the operation of the center.

This is kind of a kind of a weird monotone image, but this is an image of the containerized system for batteries that would be provided.

This is a system that's been developed specifically for data centers.

It is, like I said, containerized, so it's coming as a developed package to the building, and it is plug-and-play designed specifically for data centers.

Backup generators, we talked about and showed a backup generator just a second ago.

To be clear, the last hearing we talked about 48 generators with a revised plan.

There are now 24 generators.

Keras is committing that the generators will be used solely for emergency purposes in the event of a power failure.

At the September hearing, there were questions about peak shaving or supplemental power.

We want to put that issue to bed.

KARIS will use generators solely for purposes of emergency power.

With the stewardship pledge, we're committing to using tier four generators.

To be clear, tier two generators are the standard for data centers.

With the tier four generators, Keras is committing to modern technology that meets the absolute highest emission standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

As part of this commitment, we're also pledging to use containerized systems.

These systems integrate sound attenuation, fuel storage, and modern technology to meet some of the most exacting standards for a data center.

The image to the right is representative of the container system that would be deployed at the data center.

The bottom section of the trailer-like structure is a doubled wall diesel fuel tank with integral leak detection.

So I'm gonna pause on this just for one second.

So this is this is a containerized system.

This system would come pre-built.

To be clear, the the structure up here is sort of like a trailer, right?

We can actually see for purposes of understanding the size, this is a door.

So people will walk in and out of this containerized system with the generator located within this structure.

The other thing I was just referencing is the integral fuel tank.

So this is part of the overall setup.

You see here the bottom of the container is actually the double wall fuel tank with leak detection.

So just to be clear, that means there's two separate walls.

There's a there's an inner wall, which the diesel liquid would be hitting.

Um, there's an interstitial space, there's alarm detection in the interstitial space, so that if liquid were to seep from the inner tank to the outer tank, there would be an alarm that would come on.

We would be able to address the issue, but still there would be no problem because there's the outer tank that would contain the diesel fluid.

So it is a it is a modern system.

It is a system that is tried and tested across data centers and other applications.

I would be remiss if when I talk about this, I did not say that while there has been a lot of emotion about the construction of a data center here.

It's been Lucent, it's now Nokia.

There is there's switching gear, there is there is critical telecommunications infrastructure within the building that exists today.

There's a million square feet immediately adjacent.

It has been used for testing labs.

There have been, there have historically been 20,000 gallon waste tanks located on the property.

There are today diesel fuel tanks on the property.

There are today diesel fuel generators that support a smaller scale data center that is actually located within the Nokia building today.

So I know that's not common knowledge, and if I kind of go back to my listening to podcasts, historically speaking, if we talk to Brian Groth today, Brian's not going to tell you any details about the city's electrical infrastructure, right?

Brian views the electrical infrastructure of the city as critical infrastructure.

It's a it's a safety issue if we begin telling and disclosing all of the information about our water supply or about our electrical supply.

Data centers have treated themselves the same way for 30 or 40 years.

Data centers are all around us.

This is not a new, this is not a new thing.

It's come to public attention in the last couple years as they have proliferated because we are relying more and more on technology, but there are multiple data centers in Naperville today.

When we get to Lance, he will talk a little bit about that.

This is a fuel fill diagram.

So I wanted to just point out that with the with the system that we are sitting sitting setting up for the generators, there will also be a manifold system for combined location of fueling tanks.

So what we're showing here is that one tanker would pull up, would uh would approach a manifold system and would be able to fill four diesel fuel tanks from that one location.

Of course, each location with a manifold would have spill protection.

Um so there would be uh surrounding elements ensuring that the if there was a spill of diesel fuel, that diesel fuel is not getting into the ground or the surrounding environment.

Um water usage.

Um Keras is committing to um or I at the last hearing social media elsewhere, we keep hearing talking points about water usage.

Um, it's true that some data can data centers consume vast quantities of water, not all data centers are created equally.

Um we are pledging to use an air-cooled cloak closed loop chiller system that is specifically designed to limit water usage.

The closed soup system will be filled as part of initialization, periodically, it will be topped off as part of the regular maintenance, but it will not consume potable water on a daily basis.

Let me repeat that.

On a daily basis, the closed loop uh chiller system will not consume water.

So if if anybody is suggesting that this data center is going to be a heavy user of water, they're not listening or not understanding.

Um this data center is going to consume the same volume of water on a daily basis as an office building.

This data center is going to consume significantly less water than was consumed on this property previously when there was a 600,000 square foot office building.

Um, I'm on the the air-cooled chiller.

I I this is uh this is a picture of the of the train chiller system that we've spec'd.

Um there are details in our um air in our sound study that that specifically call out the specs on this train system.

Um I I do want to note that um we've actually oversized the rooftop cooling systems.

Um we've we've installed more cooling systems than our more cooling units than are required to cool the building.

Um the thought process is we do not want our our systems running at 100% operation on hot days.

Um on hot days, we want them running at 50 to 60 percent capacity.

Um there's a couple of there's a couple of benefits to that.

One, it's going to naturally result in noise reduction.

So a chiller unit that's running at 50% capacity, just like your car running at 50% capacity, is making less noise.

The second benefit is more accretive to us, but it's redundancy.

And so if a chiller unit goes out, we do not have an emergency situation where something has to be replaced immediately.

We have redundancy built into the system so that we can replace multiple chiller units at a time and still be able to comply with code requirements.

Ben asked that while Naperville is on 2018 IFC International Fire Code today.

Because we're in the process today, we might be grandfathered into the 2018.

And so it was asked that with respect to the battery storage components that we would agree to comply with 2024 IFC code requirements.

Our answer was, of course, yes, we will comply with 2024 IFC requirements.

So if you look at that top item that I had already blown through, it does include a commitment there that while the name while Naperville is on 2018 codes, we will comply with 2024 codes.

It concluded that the data center, even the two data centers, could operate in compliance with the city's noise regulations.

Of course, we've updated the study based on the uh elimination of the phase two building.

Um the study has has since the last hearing also been peer reviewed by the city's consultant.

Um before we flip to the next slide, I'm showing you this image because I wanted to point out two receptors that we'll talk about for just a minute.

So if we look to I guess the north of the property, um, we have the the closest neighbor commons townhomes in this location.

Um that receptor is identified as R16.

Um we talked about the closest neighbor in Indian Hill Woods.

Um he's right here.

He is receptor R1 1.

Um so when we flip to the next slide and we begin looking at what we modeled.

So situation one is is an average sound.

Situation two is the worst hour of sound modeled with uh with generators running.

Um what we see is that in these residential locations, the the total increase in in decibels at those locations at the two closest residential receptors is 0.1.1.2, 0.1, 0.2, 0.1 decibels.

It is it by definition per the sound engineer, it is negligible.

Um what I would it's hard to understand though.

So what I would point out, and I think I have on the next slide, is that um when we look at sound, sound is not log a lot, not linear, it's logarithmic.

I'm not gonna get into a lot of details here, but when we go back and we look at that last slide, I would emphasize it what I would emphasize looking at the background.

So here's the background DBA, so this is actual measured noise at the location of those receptors.

Here's the modeled emissions.

So this is the this is the projected noise based on the sound plan model run by our engineer of what our what our data center facility is going to produce at those receiver locations.

So just by way of example, I I think I picked uh I picked a night location.

So uh at night at receptor R16, so that's Naper Commons townhomes, the the background noise today is 56.7 decibels.

Um, the background, if you couldn't hear background noise, what they would hear from our data center is 40.3 decibels.

So when we think about that 16 point that that 16 decibel difference, um, we plug that into a friend like ChatGTP, and it's going to tell us that the 16 dBAs is three times louder.

So the existing environment is three times louder than the impact that they would get from us.

So let's look at that another way, right?

So, what is what how would you compare 56 dBA to 30 dB or to 40 dBA?

So again, chat GTP tells us that 40 dBA is a quiet library.

56 dBA is restaurant background noise.

So I I think we heard a lot of conversation about uh about noise and impact to adjacent residents at the last meeting.

Um I hope that with the the change to the plan and the findings here, which were certainly verified by the city's consultant.

I hope we've been able to put that issue to rest.

Um, so uh no no backup slides for the last four, so I'll run through those pretty quickly.

Um we were here last time, there was a forest preserve district letter.

Um, the forest preserve district um submitted a letter responding to the the cities sending them plans about the data center.

There were exactly two issues that the forest preserve district had raised.

One was dark sky compliance, and the second was prohibition of coal tar sealance.

Um I was pretty happy to see that they had only raised two issues because frankly, when when I worked for Pulti on Naper Commons, um the other residents that are here tonight, there were a lot more concerns that were raised by the Forest Preserve District at that time.

I I think it's the fact that when we did Napor Commons, we were immediately adjacent to the Forest Preserve District.

Here, doing the data center, we're well removed from the forest preserve districts.

So there were two issues that they asked us to address.

And I actually doubled down on this.

I questioned whether I should do it, uh, but I did.

I sent an email to Kevin Stowe at the Forest Preserve District.

I've worked with Kevin on all kinds of development projects in Naperville and elsewhere, and said, Hey, would you like to meet?

Can we walk you through the plans for the data center?

I want to make sure that there's no issues.

And Kevin's response was no need to meet.

We've identified the concerns, nothing else.

So with the stewardship pledge, um, we are committing that the project will be dark sky compliant.

Um, if you recall correctly, we had an expert here at the last meeting.

Um, he said it would not only be dark sky compliant, but we would be better than dark sky.

For example, at normal operation at night, our lights will be dark sky compliant.

In addition to that, um, in order to be efficient with the operation of our data center, because those are things that are measured by the industry.

Um, we have uh we have motion detectors on all of the outdoor lights.

So not only will they be dark sky compliant, they're gonna be better than dark sky compliant when there's not somebody moving around outside.

So I we we will comply with the Forest Preserve District request there.

Um, the prohibition on the use of coal tar sealants is is an easy one.

We will prohibit the use of coal tar sealants on private property.

Um we cannot make that commitment with respect to Naperville property.

Um, so roads that are not owned by us, but internal development of the data center, there will be no coal tar sealants.

Um electric waste recycling program.

Um we are committing to establish an e-waste recycling program.

Um this is something that's uh that's a little ways out there.

Um it's certainly an important issue.

We there is going to be e-waste coming out of this data center, um, just like there's e-waste coming out of our houses, we transition phones every two or three years.

Um, we're committed to establishing an e-waste program.

Um, we'll work with Naperville on lifting that up as a condition to building permits.

Um, and I think the the city has its own e-waste program, so I think there's some opportunity to collaborate on opportunities there.

Bear with me, I'm almost done here.

So um the last item in this segment is electrical usage.

Um we heard questions at the last meeting.

Keras is saying 36 megawatts or 72 megawatts.

How do we know they're they're gonna blow by that?

They're not going to live by the commitments that they're making.

Well, we are we're stand-up folks, we are here today making pledges to you that we are absolutely going to live by the commitments that uh that were in our plans last time, um, and we're putting it in writing in a different format this time, asking that it be incorporated into the legal agreements approving this project.

We are capping the IT load for the data center at 36 megawatts.

Um, oversight and accountability, and I think this is this is the this is the last section for the presentation.

So just three items I'll run through real quickly here.

Um, that's not to say they're they're less important because that the first one I think is critically important.

So we're proposing that for the first five years of commercial operations, Keris will file a property stewardship report detailing key operations of the campus, including the delivery of services from electric and water, statistics regarding reliability of operations, backup generation, property tax fiscal impact summary, um, aggregate request for emergency services.

We are going to produce documentations for the first five years of operation to tell you that we did exactly what we told you we would do.

We're not afraid of that commitment.

Um, residents asked for it.

I think Commissioner Robinson sort of suggested something along those lines.

Um we came back and said, absolutely not a problem, we'll do it.

I would just note that when we identified five years in other in other agreements when we do TIFFs or other things, there's always a term on this.

Um we can certainly have a conversation about what the term needs to be, but after five years of substantiating that there has not been any extraordinary water use, I don't think there's the there's going it's going to be necessary to continue belaboring that point.

Um the emergency response and safety plan.

Um so on a we've talked about the investment, right?

250 million dollars.

Um, the residents are concerned about safety and security of this campus.

Um, Caris is concerned about the safety and security of this campus.

I will tell you that their lender and their insurer are equally concerned about the safety and security of this campus.

So the emergency response plan is something that we would do not just for Naperville.

We would do it as part of our loan documents.

We would do it as part of our insurance underwriting, and they are going to want to know what are all of the contingencies and what are the liabilities associated with operating this campus.

So in advance of operating the campus, we will develop the emergency response and safety plan.

If there is a concern, whether it be noise, whether it be truck traffic, whether it be an employment issue, or whether it be bringing somebody from the data center to the school to talk to students about what they actually do in a data center, because that's where jobs are going.

So with that, I get to the thank you slide.

Um talked for a long time there, um, but I hope it was comprehensive.

We didn't get a chance to respond to resident comments last time.

Um, but I think it was the the intent of the presentation was to be very proactive and to respond to a lot of the questions we heard last time from commissioners and from residents.

So hopefully um that was informative.

I'm sure there's going to be additional questions.

I don't know if you want to do that now or if we're going to residents, but um, thank you for paying attention to me for a very long time tonight.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

So, with that said, it is late.

Um, I want to make sure that we hear from everybody, but we do need to take a five minute break.

So we'll adjourn in five minutes.

Thank you.

Let's get started.

I want to remind everyone, for the sake of all those in attendance, to please refrain from clapping or shouting out in response to comments made by any speaker.

So with that said, Secretary Wright, I would like to hear from anyone in the public present tonight that would like to speak.

Do we have anyone signed up?

Trey McAllister followed by Max Watkins.

All right, hello, folks.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Trey McAllister.

I'm a local neighbor here, and I'm here to put our community's health first.

I am a member of the Western Suburb Illinois Democratic Socialists of America.

And I've seen my grandparents' communities be uprooted by climate disasters, hurricanes in Florida, tornadoes in Illinois, and floods in my community.

I've got friends in Chicago who are at higher risk for cancer because they live in more polluted communities and are at higher risk of cancer.

This injustice drives me to demand a more livable future.

One where we all have access to a clean and healthy life.

This site backs directly onto neighborhoods, townhomes, and subdivisions that are within sight line of the proposed campus.

That means diesel backup generators, HVAC noise, and nighttime lighting will be directly hitting our schools, our homes, and our lungs.

Diesel generators are loud and pollute our air.

Diesel emissions include particulate matter and nitrogen oxides that are linked to asthma, COPD, cancer risks, and constant or reoccurring generator tasks will add up.

I know Keris Critical made lots of claims tonight, but that does nothing to go against the outstanding data across the country of data centers that are proposed onto our communities.

The same goes for the large mechanical noise that will affect the people and these communities.

Sleep disruption, stress, measurable cognitive effects in children have been shown in many studies.

And there's even a sensory garden playground right across the street from this site that is meant to uplift kids.

And this site, this proposed data center goes exactly against that.

I haven't even mentioned the ridiculous height, um, rate hikes that will that could be uh cause of this, um, as we're seeing across the country.

Um K His Critical claimed that they will propose um and implement renewable energy credits, but that is not enough to prevent direct air emissions into our communities.

The the people that are nearby will be the ones that are affected directly by this every single day.

Um, if this project is to be approved, it must have 100% renewable energy, whether through that's geothermal or solar.

Um that is the only way to truly stop emissions.

Um Keras Critical can pay for it, as they have um ponied up well over 200 million dollars to invest into this project.

Um to that point, are we also really going to listen to someone who is citing podcasts and chat GPT to justify the quality of our neighbors and their lives?

I asked that to each and every single one of you.

I believe that this data center is not right for a neighborville.

This type of data center is larger than typical data centers of the past, and in no world would any of you want your home to be neighbored to this data center.

Would you really want to subject any child to grow up next to this facility to terrorist critical?

I ask, have you talked with the residents of this community?

Do they want this in their backyard?

I stand behind the Naperville Environmental Sustainability Task Force that recommends a six-month moratorium on data centers in Naperville while the city studies the impacts.

These are the bare minimum asks that we are making of you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Max Watkins, followed by Aaron Gallagher.

Hi, uh, my name is Max Watkins.

Uh, I'm also here in strong opposition of this this data set of proposal, even the modified phase one proposal.

Um I'm not really going to speak to broader economic implications of building out data centers like this, even though there are absolutely valid concerns about the potential of like an AI technology bubble.

I'm not gonna talk about it at all.

I'm really just gonna try to focus on the immediate and clear detrimental effects uh to the local community, and I have some prepared stuff, and I'm gonna deviate a little bit because I want to address a couple of points that were brought up in the presentation specifically, so bear with me a little bit.

Um, but you know, as many people have brought up, and what they try to address is that the clearest potential costs associated with this proposal is gonna be the pressure on electricity prices.

Now, earlier this year there was an uh an article published in the scientific journal Nature, which is one of the most prestigious scientific publications uh in the world, and it found that you know globally the impact on electricity prices is fairly minimal.

However, for localities that elect to build these types of data centers, the impact can be really significant.

So, one particular case, if you look at northern Virginia.

So in Virginia, about 25% of the current electricity is actually already used for data centers.

They built up quite a lot there.

Um, especially in northern Virginia, some people refer to this as uh data center alley.

Um so in some areas in this region, residents located near these data centers have seen electricity price increases of as much as 80%, all the way up to in some cases 267% over the past five years.

And so, any this is something that you know it was brought up that maybe there's a little bit of evidence, like no, there's very strong evidence that the local impact in electricity prices can be extremely significant, uh, regardless of any guarantees that the people building data centers might have.

Um, so PJM, the largest power grid operator in the United States, the responsible for the US uh mid-Atlantic region, uh, they estimated that about 63% of the total increase in electricity prices over the past year were accounted for by data center to use demand.

Um the increased strain on electrical grid infrastructure itself uh cannot be ignored.

Right?

So this the proposal in the phase one, I believe you can correct me if I'm wrong, uh predicted an increase in electricity demand of about 10.4% on the local grid, um, which it is nominally able to absorb.

However, I really want to emphasize the point that this is a time when government at every single level should be focused on replacing dirty energy sources and inefficient electrical infrastructure with more sustainable and clean alternatives.

Um, and this is a goal which is just completely incompatible with the building of these sorts of energy intensive facilities.

And I also really want to stress the point that even if an electrical grid can technically absorb the additional uh demand on it, when you start pushing the limits of what your grid can absorb, that makes you significantly more vulnerable to grid failure from extreme weather events.

And this is something that is borne out, like I am I am a scientist, I work at Argonne National Lab, I like think about this a lot.

And as we are in a warming climate, you have a case where the increased incidence of extreme weather events is nonlinear with increase in temperature.

And so when municipalities have to plan for the future, they have to think about the increased strain on all of their systems, their electrical systems or water systems, from types of extreme weather events that really far are going to far exceed what you've seen in the past.

And so the idea that we're gonna put a lot more demand on the energy grid without immediately covering all of it with renewable energy, and so this is coming really at the material sacrifice if we're placing existing power with clean energy.

And I think this is a really, really important point to make.

One thing that I want to address specifically that actually really bothered me is that um it would the the this kind of infrastructure was compared to water infrastructure, and I think that this is a really disingenuous argument, because like a human being can live three days without water, right?

And make no mistake, what these data centers are producing mostly is you have companies who are basically just scraping your data and generating AI to sell you stuff that you do not need.

This is not critical infrastructure.

We do not need this stuff to talk in FaceTime with your families.

We do not need this stuff to look up anything on the internet.

The internet existed totally fine before the proliferation of all these types of data centers.

I think that is a really disingenuous comparison, and it really bothered me, so I wanted to address it specifically.

Um the final point I want to bring up is about the noise pollution.

Now, there was a slide presented where you were talking about you know marginal increases in noise pollution levels for local residents.

So obviously, near a data center itself, you can have really, really high noise levels.

And to the point about protecting the wooded area that's right next to this data center, you are very clearly impacting that because that is an area where it's gonna be impacted most significantly by the noise pollution, which is gonna disrupt insects and birds and everything that lives there.

Um, and also the lighting, even if you know some mitigations are made for dark sky, you're still impacting that woodland.

So the idea that that's gonna be unaffected is very disingenuous.

But I think the important point here is that even at noise levels well below what you might consider to be disruptive or what regulations might say.

So even if you know the baseline noise is something like 40 decibels, so this has been shown to result still in increased stress in populations.

So this has been measured in populations near, like the Virginia data centers, for example, where you see even at a background noise level of 40 decibels, for instance, um, the types of noise that come out of these data centers, in particular the low frequency bands, which are the ones that travel the furthest, so the ones that are hardest to mitigate with uh noise pollution controls, those can still result in increased stress levels for people and disruption of sleep and all the complicating health uh effects that come with it, you know, cardiovascular issues, hypertension, all that stuff, disrupted sleep.

And so this, I have not seen a convincing case of a data center really truly being able to mitigate this sort of thing.

There's a little evidence to suggest that this is like inherently possible just by the nature of having to run these fans all the time.

You can do a little bit, but even these low baseline constant levels of noise, because you do not get a break from it, your brain does not get a break from it, even if you can't really perceive it, it still will create these sort of health problems.

Um I want to just say that I honestly think it's kind of insulting to the local residents that this proposal is even being considered at all.

And to say that you went and asked ChatGPT about something like noise levels, you're asking AI to tell you to build more AI.

I think that's just kind of absurd.

And um with that, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I hope you all very seriously consider what the implications of this might be.

Thank you, next speaker.

Aaron Gallagher, followed by Guillermo Rodriguez.

Good evening.

My name is Aaron, and I'm a member of the West Suburban Illinois chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

I'm going to directly address a point made earlier comparing data centers to water infrastructure.

Unlike Keras Critical, I will not be citing podcasts or chat GPT, but rather my degree in computer science and over a decade of professional experience in software engineering that includes time as a cloud infrastructure engineer.

The proposed data center will not magically improve the internet provided by service providers such as Comcast or Verizon.

It's simply not true.

The data center will get their own dedicated and prioritized back end connection to the internet, surely including a service level agreement, service level agreement.

The data center will not improve working conditions for remote workers such as myself, and it will not increase internet accessibility for the residents of Naperville.

The assurances that the data center won't be used for crypto mining is insufficient.

Large language models, facial recognition algorithms, and other generative AI are similarly wasteful and use a tremendous amount of GPU processing power in much the same way as cryptocurrency does.

Where are the assurances that this data center won't be used to pump costly AI slop?

Where are the assurances that the data center won't be used to aid the Trump regime's surveillance and occupation of the Chicagoland area?

I urge the city of Naperville to reject this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Guillermo Rodriguez, followed by Sarah Baugh.

Hi, my name is Guillermo Rodriguez, and I'm from the West Suburban Illinois chapter of the DSA, uh Democratic Socialists of America, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak to all of you, uh, including in the room.

Um developers sometimes sell data centers uh as economic boons, but the numbers tell a different story for communities like ours.

The developer uh projects about 70 employees after phase one and has promised a modest increase in tax revenue while at the same time removing land that has been envisioned uh for housing um parks or small businesses.

Uh so a nearly previously 40-acre site, um, I'm not sure what it would be like now after the revisions that have been made today, um, would build a fortress like building uh plus uh heavy cooling infrastructure uh won't produce the density of long-term community uh employment uh residential or mixed use plan would.

Uh the boutique label shouldn't obscure a reality.

Uh relatively few permanent jobs, lots of short-term construction jobs, and uh substantial ongoing municipal and utility burden.

Meanwhile, the loss of uh land and um loss of land that might have hosted hundreds of houses.

Um, I'll remove this part, but um and other uh companies uh similar to it have been buying large acreage across the region, and one developer, and when one developer leaves, we're left with huge buildings and limited reuse options.

If the city values long-term distributed community benefits, uh schools, parks, affordable housing, and it must weigh these options against a model that concentrates wealth off-site, generates limited local employment, and changes the land forever.

I urge the console to prioritize use uh using um, I urge the council to prioritize uses that create real sustained community value.

And as per the Naperville Environmental and Sustainability Task Force, I asked that we put in place a six-month mortatorium on new data centers in Naperville while the city studies environmental, fiscal, and community impact.

I also strongly believe that we should reject this uh Keras critical data center.

Um we need to think about the communities and the people that live here.

We need to think about a more long-term plan instead of thinking of the short-term gains and profit that a company like this can bring to this amazing city.

Uh, thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you.

Before we go to the next speaker, I do want to comment on the moratorium because I know that's come up twice already.

That is outside of the planning and zoning preview.

We are land use, and that is a city council item.

So next speaker.

Sarah, I apologize.

I butchered your name last time, and I butchered it.

Did I okay, great, thank you?

Um, followed by Gary Peck.

Um I don't have a presentation to share, but I would like a different visual representation if it's incorrect, gavel me.

But just to visually represent how many people are here in opposition to this.

Can we stand?

Because I think that really says a lot about who's here who doesn't want this to be here.

So this is this is most of the people here.

Thank you for standing.

Thank you for letting me make that point.

Also, I'm not here to make any enemies.

I just want to present my opinion.

So I know everyone here is very hardworking and and we have different interests, and that's fine.

I don't, I'm not here to make an enemy, but I am here to present uh what I hope is an informed opinion around this.

Um, so we heard a lot tonight about context from the petitioner and the value of context when we're thinking about this.

And so, in our previous zoning meeting before, as well as prior city council meetings, namely those dating back to April 2021, the petitioner has and did repeatedly remark around the importance of looking at context, and that context is critically important.

So I'd like to do the same.

Two major precedents where the petitioner supported requests to rezone ORI property to residential use, the ones I'm referring to are Wagner Farms and Neighbor Commons.

In both cases, it was demonstrated by the petitioner that the existing industrial office designations no longer aligned with market realities, and that residential redevelopment provided a more viable and more productive reuse of that land.

The petitioner also cited that residential development complements surrounding neighborhoods and mitigates environmental impact.

Today's argument, however, is a complete and a direct reversal, as the petitioner had previously claimed, ORI no longer made sense.

In the case of the Neighbor Commons development, the petitioner representing Poulty Group at the time argued that the site's existing ORI zoning was not suitable for useful residential development, and emphasized that the property's proximity to the forest preserve made residential development more appropriate than industrial or office uses.

These arguments were framed as part of a broader discussion on the suitability of that site's zoning for residential purposes and the critical importance of protecting the forest preserve was also cited during that time.

Additionally, the same petitioner highlighted the public benefit of diverse housing stock, including what was then and that meeting referred to by another person who participated in the meeting as workforce housing, concordant with the city's goal to improve the community's housing options.

Now the same petitioner is advocating that the neighboring lot be designated industrial, which is what I would suggest is a heavy industrial use, not a light industrial use for a data center.

This position is directly inconsistent with prior arguments, where the petitioner once argued that proximity to sensitive environmental research environmental resources made residential development preferable.

The same context should now suggest that industrial use adjacent to the forest preserve and residential neighborhoods presents heightened environmental risk and doesn't belong here.

Data centers commonly involve, as you may know, materials and chemicals that can include HFCs, HCFCs, ammonia, glycol-based coolants, transformer and hydraulic oils, sulfuric acid from lead-based batteries, lithium salts.

The petitioner frequently cited the critical importance and Pulte's involvement and desire to protect the forest preserve, yet this proposed industrial data center use introduces significant environmental risks directly adjacent to that same protected resource.

In light of the petitioner's previous reasoning in favor of residential development, the same environmental and contextual concerns should logically argue against the industrial use at this location.

Regarding the petitioner's former statement in the March 17th, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, to quote the petitioner, we want to be complementary, not competing.

We want to be complementary, not competing.

A complementary use for this is not a data center.

Regarding the petitioners' most recent comments tonight suggesting that property values would not be negatively impacted.

There are almost no robust studies giving a typical percentage drop in value due to proximity to data centers.

So that's just speculation.

Regarding the petitioner's position to purchase RECs, although I appreciate this step forward, I'm concerned as RECs offset emissions on paper, but can actually create market demand for clean power, I like that, but they don't change where the power is actually coming from.

So if 80% of the grid is still coal, that coal is still being burned.

What I'd rather see direct PPAs, power purchase agreements with local Illinois-based renewable producers to create real regional impact, or bring your own clean energy.

And if we've got 250 million dollars, I think we could do it.

In regards to the petitioner's statement, likening water infrastructure has many other people have already said, and the need for data centers, of course, I beg to differ.

That perspective makes sense if you haven't ever had to consider what it's like to live without water, perhaps.

But maybe we should consider a life without so much TikTok and Instagram.

Just the suggestion.

Regarding the petitioner's suggestions to have schools visit the data center in order to see what the data center is doing for the 60 or less jobs that it may provide.

We will also need to provide PPE for those children on their field trip because that's what's necessary to go inside of a data center.

So that will look like steel toed shoes for every child, protective eyewear for every child, hearing protection and gloves, and possibly an app on a phone to monitor their sound exposure, because that's what people who work in data centers have to do, because they are not safe environments.

I'm asking you to do your jobs, not follow private business interests.

I'm asking you to prioritize what our zoning ordinances already lay out regarding conditional use permit permits, recognizing that this data center does not have compatibility with surrounding uses, as the petitioner has already argued.

Protection, it's not paying attention to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

It is inconsistent with the comp plan.

The ability to mitigate the potential impacts is unknown.

It's not an efficient use of the land, and it doesn't really benefit the community.

Preservation of the neighborhood character, also, we're not, we're it's not happening.

It's not this is just it's a self-induced hardship on the variants, and it doesn't belong here.

So please do your jobs.

We don't want it here.

Claris, we can happily welcome you in other places.

It doesn't belong right here.

Next speaker.

Gary Peck, followed by Robin Schmidt.

Good evening.

Uh I am Gary Peck, and I but I bring a different uh perspective, perhaps, not so technical as uh as some of the other speakers.

Uh I have uh two daughters, two sons-in-law, and three grandchildren uh who reside in Naper Commons.

Uh, and uh you know, I'm not by nature someone who frightens very easily, but I am worried, uh deeply worried about the long-term impact on my family and on their neighbors.

Um I'm worried about what we know, and you've heard a lot of that from some of the other residents and speakers about uh impact of uh on communities that uh reside next to data centers and how that disrupts their life.

But I'm petrified about what I don't know.

What we don't know, and what you can't possibly know, is the long-term impact on children and families of the kind of noise or energy or electricity ramifications from a data center so close to where you live.

Um, my grandchildren are six years, uh, two years and five months old.

And I I shudder to think about what their life might be like 20 years from now or 30 years from now, having been exposed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, uh, to this kind of uh interference.

The reality is you just don't know.

And while your responsibility is certainly to try to generate reasonable revenue for the city of Naperville, also part of your job is the health and safety of its residents.

So I urge you strongly to think long and hard about what this really means down the road when the fact is you don't have enough evidence to say it'll all be fine.

I also worry about the financial health of my family and their neighbors.

Um that was not a that's not an inexpensive place to live.

Most of these people spent considerable sums to purchase those homes, perhaps their life savings.

And they've made a good investment thus far, real estate values have increased.

I defy you, despite what the Keras representative said about someone investing in a home near a warehouse.

I defy you to uh beyond common sense say that putting a data center in your backyard will increase your home's value.

It's not gonna happen, ladies and gentlemen.

Never has, never will.

So you're compromising the financial health of all the residents in these communities.

Something for you to think heart long and hard about.

Um finally, you know, you have justifiably taken great pride in Naperville being categorized as a great place to live, recognized throughout the country as uh number one, number two, number three, greatest place to live.

Let me ask you this metaphor or or just uh sort of uh informally.

Does putting a data center next to your neighborhood make your neighborhood a better place to live?

Arguably no.

To me, really the the final point would be uh um a personal question for when you get home to ask yourselves.

Yeah, in my own thoughts as a parent with a family, as a homeowner, with neighbors.

How would I feel if this were my backyard?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Robin Schmidt, followed by Julian Succo.

Hello, my name is Robin Schmidt.

I live in the Fair Meadow subdivision, uh, unincorporated Naperville.

Um I just have uh I would just like to call your attention.

Last night uh I got um I sent you all a video, it's about a 45 minute video from Business Insider, uh reputable publication uh regarding uh data centers and the impact they've had on local residents, uh especially in the Northern Virginia area.

Um, the other thing uh I would like to so I'd appreciate if you would take some time to look at that.

Uh the other thing I would like to ask is uh when we've gone over there to look at the site, it's already excavated.

So I'd like to know from the petitioner is have you already dug the base for the building wherever you are?

I don't know where you are.

I mean, is it already like in progress or am I wrong?

I hope I'm wrong about that.

Does anybody know?

There's it's all excavated.

There's a big hole there where the building is supposed to go.

Do you know if it's been ex if it's been started already?

Once we get through everyone speaking, we can go back and ask the petitioner.

Once we get through everyone's speaking, we can go back to the petitioner and we can ask those questions.

Okay.

That's all.

Thank you.

Julian Succo, uh, followed by, is it Hamilton Cry?

Chai?

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Julian Zuko.

Succo is the less preferred pronunciation.

So, but I understand the the error.

I feel a little silly being up here and speaking now because the previous individuals, the residents, have presented the arguments against this center far more eloquently than I could.

In fact, sitting here, I had a sense of whiplash because as I came in here and I saw how the project changed, and then Mr.

Whitaker hit us with that fire hose of information with the pledge and everything else.

I was totally confused as to what anybody should do.

And I would be very surprised if after that presentation, you weren't all willing to vote for this because after all, 250 million dollars, that's significant money.

Now, where is it going to go?

We don't know, but that's significant money.

And the project makes everything better.

The lights are going to make the skies darker.

Uh the the sound is going to be dampened below what it is.

And this project is equivalent to water.

So why you wouldn't vote for this would be a mystery until I heard the previous speakers who are far clearer minded than I am.

I just want to remind you that it was just a few years ago that you and the city council decided that ORI was not the right zoning for that entire area.

Mr.

Whittaker has told you that it's been 60 years since it was zoned that way, so why don't we just continue that?

But the reality is that a few years back, you changed the zoning of part of that to residential.

There were 200 plus families that took you at your word and bought into this area, believing that Naperville was a great place to raise their family.

And now you're considering building a data center next to the houses that they invested their hard-earned money in.

To me, this is the biggest bait and switch that anyone could perpetrate on the residents.

Thank you for your time.

Next speaker.

Hamilton Shay, followed by Dan Johnson.

Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Hamilton Shah.

I echo what Mr.

Zucker said.

All the previous speakers really make wonderful points and much more articulated than I will.

And I'll try to just skip over a lot of things that they said.

First of all, this is a high density data center.

I haven't heard that word yet, but uh that is true.

This is not like the data center that's currently at the location.

Um, this is a completely different animal.

Um, so just please be aware of that.

Um elected officials.

Um, they are bad for the community, um, are bad for the residents with limited benefits and outweighed by negative um in resources, environment, uh, health impacts, um, and that's really shown um locally in Aurora.

Um, I'm sure someone else mentions this eventually, and you guys are probably aware of this.

Um, last month, Aurora put a moratorium on future data centers development after uh issues with recently completed new data center projects.

They have four completed apparently, four proposals, but they are currently under uh moratorium.

Uh noise, pollution, emissions, high energy and water use, storm water management challenges, utility demand, infrastructure strain, and long-term fiscal considerations are all reasons why this memoratorium is put in place.

That is from the uh sources of the city of Aurora from September 25th of last month.

Um, and I just want to highlight um this is worth saying every single time.

This is gonna be made, you know, built within, I mean, I'll say a thousand feet from um residents.

Um, other people have said it before, but you know, people are important, their health are important, families, children, as noted by many others.

Um, I don't think we can say that enough.

Um data center proposal requires 24 diesel generators, which you talk kind of talked about, storage of around 100,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

Appreciate the efforts to make it safer, but generators are backups and they do test runs at least 30 minutes out or 30 minutes per month.

Um, this is true, truly just the minimum because uh as we have seen in Aurora, um, the data center diesel generator use is um much more often.

In addition to that, um, we had mentioned um the representative mentioned closed loop systems.

Uh, from my understanding, and this is not I could be wrong, but um the closed loop system, at least at least at one of the new uh data centers is not working.

So, what happens when that happens?

You know, how much water is being used and who is responsible for that usage, and how is that uh how is the data center turned off while things are being uh repaired, which isn't happening, um, is why there is a current moratorium in Naperville as well.

Um, last but not least, these are high density data centers, um are unfavorable to residential communities.

New development proposals should not allow for corporation growth, should not only allow for corporation growth, uh, but also have local benefits and protections for our community residents and of course uh property values.

Uh, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Dan Johnson, followed by Gian Berta.

Good evening.

My name is Dan Johnson, and I really don't want to be here, to be honest, but I feel compelled that I have to speak.

So my family and I live on Weatherby Lane in Naper Commons, and our home has a direct line of sight on the proposed development.

My parents moved moved from Chicago to Naperville in the late 1970s to raise a family, and that's where they still are today.

Throughout my life, I've seen the city grow from a small suburb outside Chicago to what it is today.

I've also witnessed the opposition to developments, which have benefited both the developer and the community.

I feel this balance is a big part of what makes Naperville great.

However, this particular development does not include that balance, and I feel it provides the outsized benefit to the developer at the cost of the community.

To go through the recent history of the property from my perspective when going through the home building process, a portion of the Nokia property was subdivided and rezoned from ORI to residential in February 2020.

The PUD for Naper Commons was approved in July 2021.

In March 2022, City Council approved the land use master plan, which shows remaining portion of the Nokia property to be medium density residential.

Based on these outward signals from the city and our observation that the remaining Nokia building may be near the end of its service life, we purchased our home in Naper Commons in September 2022.

Our intention is to raise our family and retire on the same property, like my parents did.

My hope is I could trust the signals that the city portrayed that the remaining lots of the Nokia property would generally become residential as they opened up.

However, the petitioner's development would not only go directly against the city's vision for that particular lot, but also most likely preclude the city's vision for the adjacent lot.

If a data center is here and a neighborhood is here, what's going to go in between?

It would probably not be homes.

As such, the city could be painting itself into a corner relative to fulfilling the land use master plan by building a data center at that location.

The petitioners also spent a lot of effort convincing the commission that noise isn't a big deal.

Their argument seems to rely on the fact that the background noise from the adjacent roads is already at a high level, so there's only a negligible increase.

To me, that argument fails on its face.

The correct response should be to reduce the noise, not to add more.

Instead of relying on high background noise to justify building something noisy, the city, maybe by way of a future developer, would construct walls to mitigate the noise to future residences.

This has been implemented elsewhere in Naperville, for example, on Washington Street and along 75th Street to newer developments to name a few.

I'm not gonna rep not gonna present any global issues regarding energy use, water consumption, and I do think data centers could serve a purpose for the city.

There are several unoccupied ORI properties along the IDA Warrenville Road corridor that could be a better fit.

Exactly one mile west of this location sits the vacant BP and Yoast facility.

If this if this development were proposed there or somewhere similar, there wouldn't be any acute harm to residents.

Interestingly, the petitioner also represents the tax revenue of the development to the city with a focus on District 203 schools.

It's an interesting quirk of the Naper Commons subdivision that the majority attend District 200 schools despite being a part of the city of Naperville.

The effect is that the harm to the Naper Commons residents won't be offset by increased school funding.

In actuality, the Neighbor Commons residents will absorb the negative effects of the development while subsidizing a benefit to the district 203 schools.

The bottom line, I don't think the city representative should allow a data center to be constructed against the will of the majority of the adjacent residents, go against the land use master plan, and possibly preclude the realization of that master plan on the adjacent lot, all while an open ORI facility is located a mile away and without providing a tangible benefit to the hundreds of adjacent residents.

And people already touched on the water.

I mean, we're not this would be a puddle, not a lake, and I'm not sure what benefit that would really be.

Um he touched on the Shervan, referring to it as an industrial facility.

Now I know it's not downtown, and so he doesn't drive by it every day, but that is not an industrial facility how I would consider it.

That has a paver patios with a rain garden that frankly my daughter and I go to to pick milkweed to feed the monarch butterflies.

It's not this facility would have an anti-climb fence, tire spikes, and it would not benefit the community at all.

It's not to me, it's not even close.

So, anyway, I hope the city can see the wisdom and find the courage to make the right decision.

Or at the very least, not construct something on the lot which wouldn't prevent the adjacent Nokia building from rezoning as residential.

Thank you all for your service to the city and your time to consider my perspective and for giving me an opportunity to speak.

I hope you will vote no, or consider vote no on the conditional use for the data center on this property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Gianberta, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Gian.

Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Brock Barbara Benson.

Sorry, I thought there was one more person there.

Okay.

Marilyn Schweitzer, Naperville resident.

Uh, Mr.

Whitaker's cover and closing slide was reminiscent reminiscent of my time at Fermi Lab and other comm centers is quite a flashback.

Regarding this plan, I'll try to be brief, just say no.

I have some concerns similar to those expressed by many of other speakers.

In addition, I have the following.

They illustrate how risky and still open-ended this development is.

For example, consider the impact of something relatively small like Seven Brew has had on its ongoing and its ongoing repercussions on planning for similar businesses.

Eliminating phase two without a plan for the remaining acreage is not comforting.

It seems like the nose of the camel is still going to be under the tent.

More definite and less intensive plans are needed, particularly in consideration of neighboring residential areas.

Naperville is struggling, planning for our future power needs.

The choice is pretty much been to accept an open-ended contract or proceed in a new direction.

We do not need the unknowns of this data center or other data centers to complicate the risk, at least at this time.

We need to return to the days when plans would not be submitted to the PCC until the plans were completely developed and reviewed.

This development has just too many unknowns and too many risks.

So please just say no.

Thank you for your consideration tonight.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Barbara Benton, followed by Tim Ferrito.

Good evening.

Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Barbara Benson, resident of Naperville, and I am chair of the Building and Development Committee for the Naperville Environment and Sustainability Task Force, as well as a member of the NES leadership.

We submitted our official statement, but wanted to use this public comment to reiterate Ness's continuing concern that several key questions remain unresolved, particularly regarding energy usage, overall environmental impact of this, and of all data centers.

While NES supports thoughtful economic development, a strong economy is essential to our community.

The financial impact on other businesses and residents must be thoroughly understood before approving a data center that will be here for decades.

NEST has recommended that the city adopt a six-month moratorium on the approval and permitting of data centers.

Following Commissioner Robin's comment, we understand the limits of this commission's purview, but still recommend a pause.

The purpose of a pause or a moratorium is to provide city departments time to assess the fiscal implications to businesses and to residents, including impact on electricity rates, property values, and long-term infrastructure maintenance for services like increased water usage and electricity distribution.

Establishing zoning ordinances and building codes based on national best practices for regulating data centers, evaluating and communicating potential health, environmental, stormwater, and utility impacts unique to Naperville's infrastructure and geography.

The proposed CARIS Center Data Center, even just phase one, if approved, would become one of Naperville's largest electricity customers.

With the city's electricity contracts still under negotiation, it is difficult to understand the cost implications for other customers or ensure that adequate sustainability standards are met.

Decisions made now could lock the city into a path with long-term financial and environmental consequences that we do not yet fully understand.

A six-month pause would allow time for the city to complete the energy contract negotiations, examine best practices in responsible data center development, fully evaluate fiscal environmental and infrastructure implications, and ensure transparency with residents before moving forward.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and your service to the community.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Tim Ferrito, followed by Joseph Lambert.

Hello.

First of all, I'm making a comment about the I have a little different view that's been presented.

I want to talk about the PGM price increases.

A lot of this had to do with capacity cost and be specific accredited capacity.

What PGM system has seen and what they have said, they have lost a lot of thermal power plants, which has taken accredited capacity off.

Solar does not work well with the data center, nor does it work well in general because of capacity implications.

It has a very low accredited capacity.

To put that in perspective, coal and natural gas are around 80%.

Nuclear is 95%.

This capacity is really what's driving the market.

Naperville is blessed to be with IMEA, because if you look at IMEA's cost of capacity, they have a lot of capacity, which balances off the need of Naperville.

So we've been immune to the price hikes recently.

Hopefully that will continue.

So if this data center comes on, it's not the what uh IMEA is going to end up doing is they have to go to the wholesale market to buy the buy the energy because the energy is not going to come from Prairie State.

Prairie states already run at max rates, okay?

So the talk about more emissions from prairie state is unfounded because they're already running at max rates.

With that, the wholesale market, so there will there might be a price increase from that, but the thing with the IMEA, they they socialize all the cost.

So some of this cost will be spread to the other members.

Naperville makes up about one third, so two thirds of the cross cost will be spread to other members.

So that's something to keep in mind.

So the the price increases should not be that should not be that bad.

Uh just because the way we're set up with IMEA.

Next, I want to talk about the the backup jobs.

Tier four system that's in for these, it's pretty incredible.

So if you look at so what these they have a SCR, so it's takes out all the oxide.

It has a particular filter for the PMs and has carbon.

The emissions that come out are very assume be burning all diesel.

Ultra low software diesel 15 ppm.

It was 1500 PPM.

One one today.

SO2 emissions that come out are nil.

So this tier four system, the emissions are going to be very, very low.

And they're only gonna run a couple times a year for emergency backup.

They will be tested about every month, and the EPA, both at the federal level and at the local level, have always approved these, and they will easily approve tier four.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Speaker.

Joseph Lambert, followed by Patrick Farrella.

Good evening.

Came before you got a little uh passionate from that.

I'm gonna try to avoid passionate time.

First off, I would like to thank Keras Critical and Mr.

Whitaker for addressing a lot of the questions that the community had about this development at the last meeting.

That said, if there's one data center, there will be more.

And that pledge is to be reviewed in five years.

Where were you on what is this?

October 15th, 2020.

Where you're gonna be on October 15th, 2030.

Do we remember this date exactly?

Who will be the monitor for this pledge?

Who will take responsibility for this pledge after the five years?

Should Keras Critical decide to sell the facility outright because they've made their money.

That's fair.

That's that's uh you know, capitalistic mindset.

I get it.

Um the renewable energy credits have been spoken to ad nauseum, but what I want to ask the board is in the uh legislation text.

I'm gonna take you to the back page number six of six.

And this is uh believe the recommended conditions.

Item number 14, and I'm gonna paraphrase here for time.

The city shall have the right, but not the obligation to enforce compliance with any conditions approved by the city.

I ask this board.

I ask the gallery public here.

Why do our elected city officials not have an obligation to enforce the conditions that they have approved?

Thank you for your time.

Hopefully, I was not overly emotional this time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Patrick Farella, followed by James Butt.

Thank you.

Uh good evening.

My name is Patrick, and I'm speaking tonight in strong opposition to Keras Critical's revised data center proposal at 1960 Lucid Lane.

I speak for myself for my community, and as a member of the WSIL Democratic Socialists of America.

As someone born and raised in DuPage County and born and proud to live and work in the new Naperville area, one of the most livable and beautiful communities in the country.

One 36 megawatt building instead of two, with 24 diesel generators instead of twice that.

But make no mistake, even at half the size, this remains a massive industrial facility with the same fundamental problems: environmental damage, public health risks, and long-term financial costs for Naperville residents.

Let's start with a so-called 250 million dollar investment.

That figure sounds impressive until you realize it's not an investment in our community, it's an investment in their own private building.

It doesn't fund schools, parks, or infrastructure that benefits residents.

It funds their server racks, cooling towers, and diesel generators.

Naperville gains no public asset from this.

The community will shoulder the noise, the heat, the risk while profits leave the city.

Next, the advertised crypto ban.

It sounds responsible, but it's both misleading and unenforceable.

There's no technical or legal mechanism for KARIS or the city to verify what computing workloads tenants run inside of a secure facility.

If a client leases space and starts crypto mining, no one outside will ever know.

A promise that can't be verified isn't a safeguard, it's a talking point.

Then there's the claim that building their own infrastructure means no rate hikes.

That's simply not how utilities work.

Even if KARIS pays for its on-site connections, the broader transmission and capacity costs fall on Naperville's municipal grid.

City staff already acknowledged that our system can handle phase one, but it couldn't handle the proposed phase two.

That means grid upgrades are inevitable and that much closer with the phase one.

And those costs don't disappear, they roll downhill to taxpayers.

Once the initial load exists, expansion pressure and hidden expenses will follow.

Meanwhile, the environment environmental footprint hasn't changed.

A 36 megawatt data center still consumes as much energy as tens of thousands of homes.

It replaces green space with concrete, worsens heat island effects, and adds constant mechanical noise.

Twenty-four diesel generators, even acoustically treated, are still two dozen industrial engines releasing particulate pollution next to neighborhoods and forest preserves.

Comparing this to the existing data center is like comparing a Honda Civic to a nuclear plant.

More cooling unit means more constant noise.

The two noises always make a louder one.

And while Keras counts, renewable energy credits, let's be honest.

Buying paper certificates doesn't change the local reality.

The heat, the water draw, and the diesel emissions happen here.

Noise and air quality remain untested at neighborhood scale.

A consultant's report might show compliance, but Aurora's Cyrus One data center was also compliant until residents couldn't sleep through the constant hum.

KARIS even compares their sound to restaurant background noise as if data center emits only human voice frequencies.

It doesn't.

Low frequency mechanical noise travels, penetrates walls, and keeps families awake.

The loss sets a minimum standard, and our consumer in our communities deserve better than the minimum.

Finally, the economic benefit is negligible.

A few dozen permanent jobs, a specialized building that can't easily be repurposed, and 20 acres left fallow with no plan.

That's not progress.

That's a lost opportunity.

Land that could have supported housing, recreation, or community spaces will instead be fenced off and humming 24-7.

Naperville deserves transparency, accountability, and foresight, not marketing.

Aurora and had the courage to pause and develop fair, transparent standards for data centers.

Naperville can and should do the same.

Let's take a step back.

Let's protect our health, our water, our quality of life, and make sure our city's long-term interests come before a private developer's short-term profits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

James Butt, followed by Jacob Van Bau.

Hi, James Butt, 25W 130 Fairmeadow Lane.

In the last meeting, I spoke about a lot of the things like generators and UPSs and all the things that Russ addressed.

What I didn't talk about was noise.

If you remember from our the last meeting, I have 30 years of data center experience.

I've been in these facilities a lot.

So this is actually directly from their noise impact study.

You'll notice the red circle that is drawn around there.

You'll notice how the sound bends around that Nokia building.

Okay.

We know that this Nokia building is not going to exist for much longer, right?

It's an old building.

Um, you know, Nokia is going to be done with it.

They've they've really publicly said that.

Um, what happens when that building goes away?

How the sound bends around that building will entirely change, right?

You see the the uh more yellow um area, that yellow area and the green area is certainly going to go up closer to those uh residences when that building goes away.

So I'm a little disappointed in the uh in the consultant that Naperville hired um to review this, that they didn't point this out, but that is a very interesting thing for those professional engineers, those licensed engineers to combat another licensed engineer, right?

You're not necessarily gonna get a super confrontive uh type of uh type of a situation where they're gonna entirely trash what one of their colleagues at another company did, right?

But I I think it's pretty easy to see that you know the noise will change significantly for the worse for those neighbors.

Um, you know, R16, R15, and so on, once that building is removed.

Okay.

Other things.

It's important to important to note that Keras Critical did their background noise stuff March 28th, Friday, March 28th through Tuesday, April 1st.

Same dates as spring break for both Wheaton and Naperville, so no school buses, no things.

That was clearly intentionally planned.

Even your sound engineer that Naperville hired questioned the dates and questioned the weekend.

But it's bigger than that, right?

They chose the absolute period of time where they could get the least amount of noise.

There's no that's not a coincidence, right?

Okay.

They also removed exceptionally loud readings from Friday night to Saturday, maybe related to loud traffic or illegal mufflers.

Come to our neighborhood.

You will hear loud traffic from the mufflers all night long, all day long.

Naperville and Warrenville roads are racetracks.

Quite frankly, I have never seen anybody pulled over on either road, right?

It is it is very loud.

So they admit those from this, that absolutely changes what that background noise is.

They don't talk about noise emanating from the building.

We're gonna talk about noise here in a little bit.

We're gonna demonstrate what this noise sounds like.

The other thing here is they did not put a model forth that talks about when all the generators are running.

Okay, now I understand that emergency generators are not you know they can make as much noise as they want in terms of how the code's written, but at the same point, there's neighbors, right, that are residents.

Okay.

This is actually taken from another presentation that uh uh somebody in the Northern Virginia area did on behalf of uh um uh Prince William County and really kind of talking about the decibel levels and really the the frequencies of the noise.

And when we talk about um these things, it's important to note that our brains process things at different frequencies differently.

So that you know, certainly the decibels matter overall, right?

And everything that they have have given has talked about just the average decibel across all the different frequencies, okay?

That's that's not quite reality, right?

So we're gonna listen uh to this, and we're this is actually um uh here is actually from a decimal meter.

I have one in my pocket here.

Um this is actual data center noise that I recorded, okay?

Um, and we're gonna place some of that data center noise here for you.

And if if it's all right if I approach with the meter so I can get the noise to the right decibels from where it's where it's at.

So give me a second here.

Okay, so uh two five acids, right?

Hear this noise.

This is the 24 by seven noise that every neighbor will hear at at both at both those uh the Indian Hills, that other neighborhood, as well as uh the folks um in uh in Naper Commons there, right?

So this is the noise that they will hear 24 hours a day.

When they open their windows, they will hear this noise at the same level that you're hearing it right now.

Okay, this is not the same as traffic.

This is not the same as other background noise.

This is a noise that is very different due to the fact that there's a lot of low, and and again, this is being reproduced, right?

It's been recorded, whatever, whatever else, right?

So it's it's a little bit different than what actually happens, but the the noise levels are approximately the same.

Oops, wrong direction.

Okay, um, one of the things I was very disappointed that the developer didn't talk about was the recommendation for uh that uh Naperville's engineers, um noise engineer um recommended, and that was to uh do uh nine-octave band um analysis of the noise that's gonna be generated and make sure that the facility uh noise is uh in accordance with the Illinois pollution control board.

Okay, um ultimately, you know, even if the facility was built, um certainly neighbors could go to the Illinois Pollution U Board if they couldn't get resolution um from from noise locally.

And it's it's probably also important to note that um Illinois pollution control boards uh decibel levels are actually less than Naperville's um zoning, uh which is you know 55 during uh uh the day and 50 at night.

Um the numbers that Illinois Pollution Control Board are significantly lower than that.

Let's just talk through a couple things uh along those lines.

So the folks, the folks over there at IPCB, Illinois pollution port, they uh they actually in the actual um uh documents uh put everything into different land classes.

So things like banks and financial institutions are Bs, uh residences are A's, and and things like that.

So they have everything coded out and mapped.

If you look at the ORI uh uses in Naperville, these are some of the ORI uses in Naperville.

They kind of all fall in the B and A bands uh for that.

Um of the things that uh that hasn't happened, and this is this is really kind of a problem.

Um, and one of the reasons why there's a lot of moratoriums and things being put in place, is the Illinois Pollution Control Board hasn't updated their noise standard since 2006.

So one of the things they don't have specifically called out is a computer data center, right?

Because in this wasn't an issue in 2006.

The data centers were a lot smaller, they didn't make as much noise, so they don't have um any rules around data centers in particular.

So this is actually a problem, right?

And it goes to the moratoriums and and all that stuff.

Um I will just I am disappointed, right?

It should absolutely be a requirement, as the staff and the um and the sound engineer put that they they beat these.

I know why they didn't talk about it, because they don't meet the requirements, right?

They're not gonna beat their requirements, and they know that.

Um we talked about that back background noise.

You know, just the background noise is higher than what is allowed by the um Illinois uh pollution board, right?

It's it's already higher.

And in particular, um the noises that are most prevalent for the data centers, um, which which data centers are really weird because there are a lot of very, very low noises, um, that another one of the speakers talked about that they carry much further, right?

But the vast majority of the peak noises are in that five to two thousand um um group, and you can see from a in three minutes, it's hard to fully articulate all this stuff, right?

Um class A land um is kind of what we're or excuse me.

This is a this chart on the on the right hand side is the uh is the is the the chart that shows what are the what is allowed under the the Illinois rules to the left or what is uh um was in their report from Kerris's report about the background noise.

So you notice these 60, 59, 59s.

Um if you kind of look at that mid-range uh number um from from either class C land to class B land, um I'm doing a horrible job of explaining this, but um the chart on the right is what is from class C, class B to class A, what is allowed to go to class A.

So what does that mean?

So class A is residential.

So this is talking about from residential, from class A residential to class A residential, you're allowed 51 at uh 500 uh Hertz.

Um at a thousand hertz, you're allowed 45.

At 2,000 Hertz, you're allowed 39, right?

So that's residential to residential.

If you have uh uh commercial that you know, kind of B, which is the banks and things like that that we covered on the couple slides over, you're looking at 51, 45, 39.

Those are still significantly higher.

And while it's a blended number, right, that was provided by uh Keras as opposed to this number that breaks it out by Hertz, the numbers are significantly larger.

This and we already know based on based on the sound and based on what you know what it looks like uh from uh from Hertz perspective that the vast majority of the of that noise output is in that 500 to 2000 hertz band.

The same problem exists for the daytime, the same problem exists for the nighttime.

There's there's not gonna be a situation where they're going to meet this um this standard.

James, can I interrupt you?

I apologize.

I just need to um typically these meetings conclude at 11 o'clock.

So unless we extend the time by simply doing a majority vote with the members.

So if I could do that real quick and then we can continue.

But as such, I would like to entertain a motion to extend the October 15th planning and zoning commission meeting to 1115.

Aye, second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, thank you, James.

This is my last slide.

I'm not gonna go over uh you know very much of this because lots of other speakers uh talked uh talked about this, but I think there's there's a number of things that I really think need to happen.

Sound issues must be addressed uh before this is approved.

It can't be redone as a as a condition that is that has no public oversight afterwards.

We're we're just allowing at that point.

Um